Author Information
SINS AGAINST THE INNOCENT IN COURTHOUSES/RECORDS/REGISTRAR/COURT REPORTERS, THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW!
Folder Contents
FALLACIES: SINS AGAINST THE INNOCENT
IN COURTHOUSES/RECORDS/REGISTRAR/
COURT REPORTERS, THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW
[1] Pursuant to Honourable Vice Chair David Muir , in Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462;
“[1] The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on February 11, 2011.
[2] On January 17, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the corporate respondent in which it directed that a Response to the Application must be filed with the Tribunal not later than February 21, 2012.
[3] As of the date of this Interim Decision the corporate respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to it been returned. [4] An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred may lead to various orders, including monetary compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a response or participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against individual and corporate respondents without their participation. The corporate respondent's attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which reads as follows:
5.5 Where an Application is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may:
a) deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application;
b) proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent;
c) deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding;
d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.
[5] The applicant has provided an address and fax number for the corporate respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the corporate respondent by regular mail and fax.
[6] If the corporate respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a Response with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the corporate respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.
Other Matters
[7] In his Application the applicant identified Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, court staff, as respondents. Due to an administrative error these individuals have not been delivered copies of this Application and have not had an opportunity respond. A copy of the Application and a copy of the Tribunal’s file will be delivered to the individual respondents who will be required to file a Response within 35 days of receiving the Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.
[8] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of July, 2012.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
David Muir
Vice-chair “
[2] Pursuant to Madam Kathleen Wynne;
“Dear Minister Meilleur:
I am honoured to welcome you back to your role as Attorney General. We have a strong Cabinet in place, and I am confident that together we will build Ontario up, create new opportunities and champion a secure future for people across our province. The people of Ontario have entrusted their government to be a force for good, and we will reward that trust by working every day in the best interests of every person in this province.
{...}
As Chief Law Officer of the Crown, you have a unique role in providing independent legal advice to Cabinet, with a special responsibility as the guardian of the rule of law. You are responsible for ensuring Cabinet is properly advised on the constitutionality and legal risks of all government initiatives. You and your ministry staff will also continue to provide legal advice to all ministries, and to review the conduct of litigation on behalf of the government.
Your ministry’s specific priorities include:
Promoting Fairness and Access to Justice
Continuing to focus on the delivery of legislative and systemic initiatives that promote fairness and access to our justice system for Ontarians.
Engaging in discussions within the legal profession about improving access to justice. You will develop a strategy to expand Legal Aid support for the most vulnerable within our society by working to raise the income eligibility threshold to qualify for Legal Aid. Your goal is to ensure that more Ontarians in need are represented by a lawyer through Legal Aid — or have access to the legal supports they may need.
Pursuing the re-introduction of legislation to protect the public from lawsuits intended to discourage public participation.
Supporting the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in reviewing the scope and effectiveness of the Ontario Municipal Board and in recommending possible reforms to improve its role within the broader land use planning system.
As the Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs, continuing to work to ensure ongoing improvement in the availability of French-language services within the justice system, including court services.”
( Kathleen Wynne Premier Updated: September 25, 2014 ,2014 Mandate letter: Attorney General Premier's instructions to the Minister on priorities for the year 2014)
[3] Pursuant to Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry;
“Access to justice
It is clear that we must remain vigilant to ensure our system of civil justice is accessible to the broad spectrum of society and not just the wealthy or those whose costs of litigation are insured. The cost of conducting litigation has increased significantly over recent years. In 1996, a review of the civil justice system headed by Justice Robert Blair and former Assistant Deputy Minister Sandra Lang made many important recommendations that addressed concerns about the increased complexity and the increased costs of litigation. Most of those important recommendations have now been implemented.
However, I am convinced that the need to ensure the accessibility of our civil justice system is an issue of such importance that we should continuously monitor our performance in this area. In this regard, we must recognize the growing phenomenon of the unrepresented litigant. Although this situation is most predominant at the trial level, we are also seeing a rise of unrepresented parties in the Court of Appeal.
Because of the concerns about access to justice, I have initiated discussions with others involved in the administration of justice with a view to establishing a project that would develop recommendations for approaches that will assist in ensuring greater accessibility to the civil justice system in the future.”
(Report of the Chief Justice of Ontario Upon the Opening of the Courts of Ontario for 2003 Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry Welcome and introduction, http://ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/archives/ocs/2003.htm )
Obstructing justice: 139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding, (2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence…
Do I have any LEGAL or HUMAN rights in Ontario?
HRTO PREAMBLE: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law…”
COURT SERVICE WORKERS HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19681-I
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________
IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
-and-
IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against Ministry of the Attorney General (Court Service Division), John Gerretsen, Sandra Theroulde, Gail Hugh, Desiree Viceral
WITHHOLDING or
DENIAL of EQUAL “COURT SERVICES”
Section. 1, 8, 9, 11, 29, 47 of the HUMAN RIGHT ACT
and Article 2(1), 3, 14(1), 23.87, 23.101, 23.105, 25(c), 26, 27, 50, and 51
________________________________________
RECONSIDERATION
for honesty, honour, integrity, fairness, equity, and the application of DUE PROCESS OF LAW and the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW
______________________________________________________
Pursuant to Section. 1, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 3.5, 8, 9, 11, 29, 47 of the Human Rights Code, Section. 15 of the Charter, Article 2(1), 3, 14(1), 23.87, 23.101, 23.105.25(c), 26., 27, 50, and 51 of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, and Section 1 and 2 of the BILL OF RIGHTS.
Wayne FERRON
HOMELESS VAGABOND
leegalpoet@gmail.com
HRTO – Registrar
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
655 Bay Street, 14th floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2A3
Phone: 416-326-1519
Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322
Fax: 416-326-2199
{…}
COURT REPORTS
John Gerretsen (Attorney General [20 Oct 2011 – 25 March 2014])
Jason Gordan - LINKAGE FACTOR
Jason Gordan - LINKAGE FACTOR
Deborah Krick - Linkage Factor
Sandra Theroulde - Linkage Factor
COURT SERVICE WORKERS
1.) Sandra Theroulde
2.) Gail Hugh
3.) Desiree Viceral
4.) Jason Gordan - LINKAGE FACTOR
5.) Deborah Krick - Linkage Factor
6.) Mr. Sam Guiyab, and Clerk of the-Registrar(Peggy) Manager's name is Mr. Michael MacLean if
7.) Lisa Stock
8.) Sandra Theroulde - Linkage Factor
9.) Ms. Kathy Barrett(SUPERIOR COURT TRIAL COORDINATOR)
10.) Ms. Desiree (Viceral-under the direction of her Manager, hid evidence)
11.) Clerk of the-Registrar (Peggy) and ….......... handle file missing evidence -
12.) Manager(Michael MacLean)
13.) Local Registrar(Samantha Moellar)
14.) Lisa Stock(A/Supervisor of Court Operations Criminal Court Services), of the Newmarket Courthouse
[26] Madam-Peggy-On the 28th of September 2012 there were also another 3 additional customers waiting to do business with the Registrar. When two of those same Clients finished their court business, the Applicant presented immediately to the Clerk of the-Registrar (Peggy) with the completed SUBPENA TO A WITNESS forms, and politely requested if she could provide copies as proof of service that he filed the same forms as instructed by the Registrar’s Acting Manager(Michael MacLean). She closed the Registrar’s window on the Applicant while instructing him to; “get your own copies (four sheets of paper) and come back on Monday” for they are close or something to that effect.
[27] Jason A. Gorda - RESPONDENT's APPLICATION FACTUM(CR-12-70000061), was filed on the 4th of October 2012 and signed on October 4th, 2012 by Jason A. Gorda (Assistant Crown Attorney).
[28] Jason A. Gorda - RESPONDENT's BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(CR-12-70000061), was filed on the 4th of October 2012 by Jason A. Gorda(Assistant Crown Attorney).
[29] Jason A. Gorda - RESPONDENT's APPLICATION RECORD(CR-12-70000061), was filed on the 4th of October 2012 by Jason A. Gorda(Assistant Crown Attorney).
[30] Gail Hugh – swore positive oath to false manufactured evidence ,filed by Assistance Crown Attorney Jason A. Gorda, who asserted to be representing Attorney General John Gerretsen who held the said high public office from the 20th of October 2011 to the 25th of March 2014.
[31] Gail Hugh – “AFFDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH” under TAB 6 of the RESPONDENT's APPLICATION RECORD(CR-12-70000061), was dated in Toronto on an unknown date, and sworn on the 4th day of October 2012, and commissioned on the 4th day of October 2012 by Debra Moskovitz(Assistant Crown Attorney). Gail Hugh a court service worker, sworn positive oath to a false manufactured evidence was commissioned by Debra Moskovitz and filed by Jason A. Gorda within the capacity of a lawful representative of Attorney General John Gerretsen.
[32] COURT SERVICE WORKER - On the 25th of January 2012 the REGISTRAR of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Toronto Region) refuse to correct an obvious error (file labeled a CERTIORARI in large bold letters), but instead choose of their own accord and insisted to add the word MANDAMUS to the cover of COURT DOCKET file number CR-12-70000062 to accompany the word CERTIORARI. As far as the Applicant is concern, this is perverting the course of justice, since MANDUS and CERTIORARI are argued differently and have different requirements to be successful or even be a viable mode of appeal. The mode of appeal has been amended to reflect MANDUS ONLY, and the REGISTRAR has been notified in addition to being pointed to the relevant document, the scheduling Clerk has been notified...
[33] Guiyab Sam - release MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-7-061-12 (C56817) on an undocumented date...
[34] Azra Parvok- confirmed MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-7-061-12 (C56817) on the 17th of July 2013
[35] x_COURTSEVICE WORKER- received file C56817 COA-RECORDS
[36] COURT SERVICE WORKERS - After filing the appeal for C56817, the Applicant tried on more than one occasion to see COURT OF APPEAL file C56817, but he was turned away and informed that he could not view the same file because the “Crown has it” or file C56817 is in the possession and control of the RESPONDENT Crown Attorney.
[37] (COURT OF APPEAL-RECORD'S Manager), was quite forceful and blatant in her denial of giving the Applicant equal service(Section. 1 of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT) in accessing public COURT documents/EXHIBITS under her carriage and control.
[38] COURT SERVICE WORKERS - Contrastingly and in the context of Section 482 of the C.C., the Crown took the COURT OF APPEAL file C56817 improperly from the same COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS without proper court documentation or without a judge’s order or without reasonable notice to the Applicant, and without the common decency of placing contended matter before an independent judge in the format of a fair hearing; but byway of a simple personal email (asserted by record’s Clerk) which the Applicant who was acting in the capacity of a Prosecutor in trying to affect the RULE OF LAW, does-not have access to his own file or public evidence.
[39] Deborah Krick - On the 13th of August 2013, whom has carriage and control of matter M42322, admitted in open court to having possession of COURT OF APPEAL file C56817; she promised to return it to the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, and has done so after improperly having it in her possession for what seems like more than a month.
[40] COURT SERVICE WORKERS - Upon checking C56817 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-Records, it was discovered that MANDAMUS APPEAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE (M61) bound in red covers was missing from COA file C56817, in addition to many case critical EXHIBITS.
[41] COURT SERVICE WORKERS – The Applicant starved, himself to obtain the money to pay for the said missing transcription of evidence, and now it has disappeared from COA file C56817 while the same file may have been under Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck carriage and control. The allege accuse(Ms. Joanne Stuart) in the Private Prosecution works in the same region, maybe even out of the same Office 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 whether this is or is-not the case.
[42] CLERKS OF COA RECORDS- in early July 2013 denied the Applicant access to view public file C56817 upon request
[43] CLERKS OF COA RECORDS- COURT SERVICE WORKS in contradiction to court rules, assisted Ms. Deborah Krick in improperly removing COA public file C56817 without lawful authority from OSGOODE HALL COURTHOUSE, and without lawful authority help to denied the Canadian public access to public file C56817.
[44] COA Registrar - on the 23th of July 2013 Clerk refuse to except and file “REQUISITION TO VIEW ALL MATERIALS FOR COURT FILE NO.: C56817 (SCJ-file number CR-12-61/CR-12-62/CR-98)”
[45] COA RECORDS - on the 23th of July 2013 Clerk refuse to except and file “REQUISITION TO VIEW ALL MATERIALS FOR COURT FILE NO.: C56817 (SCJ-file number CR-12-61/CR-12-62/CR-98)”
[46] COA RECORDS - on the 23th of July 2013 Clerk refuse to except and honour their own complete “REQUISITION” form to view public COA file C56817.
[47] COA RECORDS - on the 23th of July 2013 Clerks refuse to articulate or provide an official time when the Applicant could schedule to view to view public COA file C56817.
[48] DEPUTY REGISTRAR (Sandra Therould) - did not refused to accept “NOTICE OF MOTION FOR DIRECTIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF RULES OF THE COURT AND EQUAL TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES FOR THE INFORMANT (C56817), Returnable on March 26, 2014 at 10:00 A.M.”The COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR accepted the motion, but did not file it nor assigned a motion number to it. C56817 was dismissed.
[49] DEPUTY REGISTRAR (Sandra Therould) - refused to accept “NOTICE OF MOTION BEFORE A PANEL TO APPEAL JUSTICE FELDMAN'S OPINION” FOR M43059; Justice Feldman's Order was selectively enforcing Justice Andres's order with respect to a criminal matter. After I was Threaten with a Security Officer being called and Justice Horton ruled against my appeal I sent matter to SUPREME COURT OF CANADA( SCC file # 35821). The registrar promised to review the matter with a TEAM OF LEGAL EXPERTS, there has been no formal disclosure to the aforesaid review or formal letter stating the reasons why the Applicant's motion was being refused by COURT SERVICE WORKERS and not place before a Judge to adjudicate the refusal or denial of the Applicant's motion being heard like other Canadians. No defect in the motion form or documentation was pointed to by the REGISTRAR.
[50] COA REGISTRAR/RECORDS - on the 30th of July 2013 the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS and REGISTRAR “REQUISITION TO VIEW ALL MATERIALS FOR COURT FILE NO.: C56817 (SCJ-file number CR-12-61/CR-12-62),” byway of government registered mail(RW 958 576 670 CA)), to COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5. There has been no response or the honoring of the same REQUISITION.
[51] COA RECORDS - on the 30th of July 2013 the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS and REGISTRAR “REQUISITION TO VIEW ALL MATERIALS FOR COURT FILE NO.: C56817 (SCJ-file number CR-12-61/CR-12-62),” byway of government registered mail(RW 958 576 670 CA)), to COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5. There has been no response or the honoring of the same REQUISITION.
[52] COA REGISTRAR/RECORDS - on the 1st of August 2013 the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS “REQUISITION TO VIEW ALL MATERIALS FOR COURT FILE NO.: C56817 (SCJ-file number CR-12-61/CR-12-62),”(7 pages, Receipt No.: 58152) for copy costing $7.00), byway of personal service to the COA RECORDS-Clerks, at COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5. There has been no response or the honoring of the same REQUISITION.
[53] Desire Viceral - On the 17th of September 2013 a COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARION-RECORD'S CLERK who goes by the name Desire Viceral and was instructed by the COA RECORDS Manager, tried to covertly give to the Applicant corroborative evidence that was not only placed before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer at the lower court; but also, proved conclusively that agents of the Crown not acting in the capacity of a lawful deputy of Her Majesty the Queen, manufactured evidence or misrepresented evidence in addition to swearing a false affidavit in support of the same improper evidence.
[54] Desire Viceral - On the 17th of September 2013 the court documents which Desire Viceral try to covertly give to the Applicant under the guise of deception and direction from her superior(COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS MANAGER), are 5 copies of the January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(07-02500/07-02559)...
[55] MINISTARY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL- On Jan 23, 2014 the Applicant filed on the CROWN LAW OFFICE CRIMINAL, “REQUISITION FOR
1.) Ms. Deborah Krick or on behalf of Ms. Joanne Stuart, to return forthwith the Applicant's confiscated legal instrument...,” There has been no response or the honoring of the same REQUISITION.
[56] on or about November 7, 2013, I served on the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS-RECORDS, “REQUESITION FOR Certified copy of EXHIBITS IN C.O.A file C56817” Some court reporters responded, but my Requisition was not honoured or completed.
[57] on or about January 8, 2014, I served on the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS-REGISTRAR, “REQUESITION FOR
2 certified copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013.
” There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.
[58] DEPUTY REGISTRAR (Sandra Therould) - on or about January 2, 2014, I served on the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR,
“REQUESITION FOR
1.) 7 Certified copy of EXHIBITS IN C.O.A file C56817
2.) copy of COURT MATERIAL LIST
3.) Request for the forthwith return of C56817's missing EXHIBITS & DOCUMENT.”
There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.
[59] SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(TORONTO) REGISTRAR - on or about January 4, 2014, the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR,
“REQUESITION FOR
ALL COURT MATERIALS FOR Court file Number CR-12-61/CR-12-62/CR-98 TO BE FORWARDED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL”
There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.
[60] COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR-on or about January 9, 2014, the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR,
“REQUESITION FOR
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE file No.: M147/12 and all it's contents to be sent to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO for APPEAL MATTER C56817”
There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.
[61] SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(NEWMARKET)-REGISTRAR-on or about January 13, 2014, the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR,
“REQUESITION FOR
4 certified copy of the honourable Justice Healy J. court order releast on August 10th, 2012;
4 certified copy of PROOF OF the WAYNE FERRON'S receipt of the honourable Justice Healy J. court order releast on August 10th, 2012”
There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.
[62] SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(BRAMPTON)-REGISTRAR-on or about January 20, 2014, the Applicant served on the SUPERIOR COURT-REGISTRAR,
“REQUESITION(Court file No.: CV-12-0716-00) for
4 certified copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order releast on July 8th, 2013;
4 certified copy of PROOF OF WAYNE FERRON'S receipt of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order released on July 8th, 2013
1 certified copy of AFFIDAVIT OF OF BRADBURY FERRON V. R.; court file No. 07-22259(S.C.J.), Justice I. Andre J. court order released on July 8th, 2013.”
There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.
[63] ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR - on or about January 20, 2014, the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR,
“REQUESITION
FOR
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO file C56817 to be present and accessable for use as supporting material in assisting the court in MATTER M42812”
There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.”
[64] COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR-on or about January 20, 2014, the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR,
“REQUESITION FOR
1.) 4 certified copy of the C.O.A. filed Crow(Ananthan Sinnadurai) letter, which I personally requested; but the same letter was lost before it could be reproduced and certified while under the carriage and control of the REGISTRAR;
2.) a copy of Justice Andre endorsement and written articulated response, concerning the date of filing or the date the honourable Justice Andre, J. hand written (endorsement (CV-13-1060)) court order became was placed in C.O.A. file M82812;
3.) a copy of Justice Andre endorsement and written articulated response, concerning the date of filing or the date the honourable Justice Andre, J. typed court order (endorsement(CV-13-1060) ) was placed in C.O.A. file M82812;
4.) a copy and a written articulated response, concerning the date of filing or the date the honourable Justice Andre, J. July 17, 2013, released REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT(CV-13-1060) was placed in C.O.A. file M82812.”
There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.
PLEASE SEE THE REQUISITIONS TO THE RECORDS, REGISTRAR AND MADAME DUPUTY, MOST OF THEM HAS NOT BEE FULFILLED. THE REQUESTED EVIDENCE WAS FOR THE COURT OF APPEAL AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, AND I HAVE BEEN RULED AGAINST IN THOSE CASES.
[65] Pursuant to David Muir , in Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462;
“[1] The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on February 11, 2011.
[2] On January 17, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the corporate respondent in which it directed that a Response to the Application must be filed with the Tribunal not later than February 21, 2012.
[3] As of the date of this Interim Decision the corporate respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to it been returned. [4] An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred may lead to various orders, including monetary compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a response or participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against individual and corporate respondents without their participation. The corporate respondent's attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which reads as follows:
5.5 Where an Application is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may:
a) deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application;
b) proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent;
c) deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding;
d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.
[5] The applicant has provided an address and fax number for the corporate respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the corporate respondent by regular mail and fax.
[6] If the corporate respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a Response with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the corporate respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.
Other Matters
[7] In his Application the applicant identified Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, court staff, as respondents. Due to an administrative error these individuals have not been delivered copies of this Application and have not had an opportunity respond. A copy of the Application and a copy of the Tribunal’s file will be delivered to the individual respondents who will be required to file a Response within 35 days of receiving the Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.
[8] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of July, 2012.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
David Muir
Vice-chair “
(Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462, File Number: 2011-08103-I , Adjudicator: David Muir )
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
26.3 A Request for Reconsideration must include:
a) reasons for the request, including the basis upon which the Tribunal is asked to grant the request for reconsideration;
b) submissions in support of the request; and,
c) remedy or relief sought.
26.5 A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:
a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or
b) the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or
c) the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or 33 April 30, 2014
d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
REASONS FOR REQUEST (26.3 (a.):
PREMISE:
1.) Did COURT SERVICE WORKERS reproduce public evidence in accordance with the rules the court?
2.) Are REQUISITION to the REGISTRAR or RECORDS still pending?
3.) Are REQUISITION TO THE Deputy Clerk STILL PENDING;
4.) Did COURT SERVICE WORKERS provide equal service to the Applicant in accordance with COURT rules and laws?
5.) Did COURT SERVICE WORKERS deny the Applicant a fair hearing by suppressing evidence?
6.) Did COURT SERVICE WORKERS provide equal service to the Applicant in accordance with the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE?
7.) Is there a CONTRAVENTION NATURAL JUSTICE?
8.) Is there CONTRAVENTION PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS?
9.) Is there a contradiction of CASE LAW?
10.) Is there a contradiction of of the HRTO RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, and does the matte conform to some of the conditions in Section 26.5 of the Human Rights act for RECONSIDERATION?
{…}
COURT REPORTER SERVICES HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19680-I
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________
IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
-and-
IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against Ministry of the Attorney General (Court Service Division), John Gerretsen, Arlene Gorewicz, Santiago Orbe and Joy Webster
WITHHOLDING or
DENIAL of EQUAL “COURT SERVICES”
Section. 1, 8, 9, 11, 29, 47 of the HUMAN RIGHT ACT
and Article 2(1), 3, 14(1), 23.87, 23.101, 23.105, 25(c), 26, 27, 50, and 51
________________________________________
AMENDED
RECONSIDERATION
for honesty, honour, integrity, fairness, equity, and the application of DUE PROCESS OF LAW and the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW
______________________________________________________
Pursuant to Section. 1, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 3.5, 8, 9, 11, 29, 47 of the Human Rights Code, Section. 15 of the Charter, Article 2(1), 3, 14(1), 23.87, 23.101, 23.105.25(c), 26., 27, 50, and 51 of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, and Section 1 and 2 of the BILL OF RIGHTS.
Wayne FERRON
HOMELESS VAGABOND
leegalpoet@gmail.com
HRTO – Registrar
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
655 Bay Street, 14th floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2A3
Phone: 416-326-1519
Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322
Fax: 416-326-2199
{…}
COURT REPORTS
John Gerretsen (Attorney General [20 Oct 2011 – 25 March 2014])
Jason Gordan - LINKAGE FACTOR
COURT REPORTER
Joy Webster
Orbe Santiago
Arlene Gorewicz
[26] Arlene Gorewicz - The Crown filed TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000061) on the 24th of July 2012:
On page 2, TRANSCRIPT ORDER DATE was blank.
On page 2, TRANSCRIPT COMPLETION DATE was blank.
On page 2, TRANSCRIPT ORDER PARTY NOTIFICATION DATE was blank.
On page 15, TRANSCRIPT certification page, the signeture of Arlene Gorewicz is in blue ink with the assertion that TRANSCRIPTION RECORDING OF Ms. A. Collins verbatum reporter. (This is an outdated procedur and there are new laws and procedure for the legal instrument in question.)
On back page of TRANSCRIPT is the official stamp of the Crown's Office receiving the same TRANSCRIPT on June 28, 2012.
On back page of TRANSCRIPT is the official stamp of the SUPERIOR COURT(Toronto)-REGISTRAR receiving the same TRANSCRIPT on July 24, 2012.
[27] Arlene Gorewicz - The Crown filed TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000062) on the 24th of July 2012:
(1) On page 2, TRANSCRIPT ORDER DATE was blank.
(2) On page 2, TRANSCRIPT COMPLETION DATE was blank.
(3) On page 2, TRANSCRIPT ORDER PARTY NOTIFICATION DATE was blank.
(4) On page 15, TRANSCRIPT certification page, there is no signeture of Arlene Gorewicz in blue ink. There is an assertion that TRANSCRIPTION RECORDING OF Ms. A. Collins verbatum reporter. (This is an outdated procedure and there are new laws and procedure for the legal instrument in question.)
(5) On back page of TRANSCRIPT is the official stamp of the Crown's Office receiving the same TRANSCRIPT on June 28, 2012.
(6) On back page of TRANSCRIPT is the official stamp of the SUPERIOR COURT (Toronto)-REGISTRAR receiving the same TRANSCRIPT on July 24, 2012.
(7) Pursuant to the CANADA POST OFFICE CLERK, PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT (CR-12-70000062) was served on Wayne Ferron(the PRIVATE PROSECUTOR) on Wednsday the 1st of August 2012 at about 3:00 P.M..
(8) THE CANADA POST STAMP or representation of a CANADA POST STAMP, indicates that the CROWN mailed the PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT(CR-12-70000062) to Wayne Ferron(the Applicant) on the 26th of July 2012.
(10) ELI ZITELLA's letter which accompanies PRE-ENQUETTE TRANSCRIPT (CR-12-70000062) is date July 25, 2012, and articulates as followes;
“...Dear Mr. Ferron:
Re: -File No: M61/12
Please find enclosed the Proceedings At Pre-Enquette Transcript dated March 6, 2012 which is being sent to you via Canada Post.”
Signed by Eli Zitella(Legal Administritive Assistant)
[28] Arlene Gorewicz - on August 24, 2013, the Applicant ordered March 6, 2012 TRANSCRIPTS(recording# 481 750 120 120 306 083 857) from Ms. Arlene Gorewicz, a Court Reporter. The same TRANSCRIPT(C56817) was to be used for a matter under Appeal at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO under the file number C56817.
[29] Santiago Orbe - on or about December 10, 2013, the Applicant served on Orbe Santiago a Court reporter a letter, “Santiago Orbe...”
His request and concerns were blatantly ignored without regard for the implied conditions of there agreement.
[30] COURT REPORTERS - on or about December 30, 2013, the Applicant served on the Court reporters,
“REQUESITION FOR
1.) COURT REPORTER'S for MO-7-61-12 a NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION(C56817)
2.) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION(C56817).” Some court reporters responded, but the Requisition was not honoured completed.
[31] Arlene Gorewicz - on or about January 2, 2014, the Applicant served on the Ms. Arlene Gorewicz a Court Reporter at 1:10 pm,
“REQUESITION
1.) OMITTED INFORMATION 2ND PAGE OF 1ST TRANSCRIPT(M61)
2.) OMITTED INFORMATION 2ND PAGE OF 2ND TRANSCRIPT(M61)
3.) Court Reporter's CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION(M61),
” on the 2nd floor byway of the REGISTRAR CLERK(Bruna), at ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, College Park, 444 Younge St.., Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2H4. Ms. Arlene Gorewicz has not responded nor has she honoured the same Requisition.
[32] on or about January 2, 2014, the Applicant served on the Ms. Arlene Gorewicz a Court Reporter at 1:10 pm,
“REQUESITION
1.) OMITTED INFORMATION 2ND PAGE OF 1ST TRANSCRIPT(M61)
2.) OMITTED INFORMATION 2ND PAGE OF 2ND TRANSCRIPT(M61)
3.) Court Reporter's CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION(M61),
” on the 2nd floor byway of the REGISTRAR CLERK(Bruna), at ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, College Park, 444 Younge St.., Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2H4. Ms. Arlene Gorewicz has not responded nor has she honoured the same Requisition.
[33] JOY WEBSTER - on or about February 13, 2014, the Applicant served on JOY WEBSTER a Court reporter a letter, “JOY WEBSTER...”
There was no response, and my request and concerns were blatantly ignored without regard for the implied condiction of there agreement.
[34] ORBE SANTIAGO - on or about February 13, 2014, the Applicant served on Orbe Santiago a Court reporter a letter, “Orbe Santiago ...”
There was no response, and his request and concerns were blatantly ignored without regard for the implied conduction of his agreement.
[35] JOY WEBSTER - on or about April 18, 2014, the Applicant served on JOY WEBSTER a Court reporter a letter,
“JOY WEBSTER {…} RE: Please complete the outstanding transcript order for TRANSCRIPTS(C56817) for March 11, 2013(ordered on June 11, 2013) for COURT OF APPEAL MATTER (Wayne Ferron -v- Her Majesty the Queen, C56817) ASAP.”
PLEASE SEE LETTer TO JOY WEBSTER, ORBE SANTIAGO, REQUISITION TO Ms. Arlene Gorewicz, and COURT REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORMS or all of this can be confirmed and corroborated in the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS FOR ONTARIO
[36] C56817 and C53332 were dismissed the next month before transcript problems could be resolved in the status court, even-though there was a vexative order matter on appeal before the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.
PLEASE SEE THE LETTERS FOR THE STATUS COURTS
IN ADDITION TO ALL THIS, THERE WERE OUTSTANDING TRANSCRIPT ORDERS AND REQUISITION FOR COURT ORDERS AT THE COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS
[37] Pursuant to Richard Hennessy ;
“Re: Wayne Ferron v. Ministry of the Attorney General (Court Services Division) John Gerretsen, Sandra Theroulde, Gail Hugh, Desire Viceral
Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of an Application, HRTO file number 2014-19681-I, filed by Wayne Ferron on December 19, 2014.
The HRTO has reviewed the Application. It appears the Application is outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction because:
• while your response to question #7 of the Application alleges that the last incident of discrimination you experienced occurred on or about April 30, 2014, a review of your Application indicates that it is either not clear what incident of discrimination is alleged to have occurred on this date or how the incident described as occurring on that date constitutes an incident of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. See for example Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241 (CanLII); Mafinezam v. University of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1495 (CanLII); and Garrie v. Janus Joan Inc., 2012 HRTO 1955..
[38] ORBE SANTIAGO - on or about April 18, 2014, the Applicant served on Orbe Santiago a Court reporter a letter, “Orbe Santiago {…}RE: Please complete new transcript order for TRANSCRIPTS(C56817) for October 9, 2012(original order on June 11, 2013 was incomplete), and
Pursuant to Richard Hennessy ;
•• the/a respondent is an arbitrator, adjudicator or judge. The HRTO has stated that it has no jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals based on the execution of adjudicative duties or decision-making because of the doctrine of judicial or adjudicative immunity: see Cartier v. Nairn 2009 HRTO 2208 (CanLII); Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp. 2009 HRTO 2180 (CanLII); Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 (CanLII).
• a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents.
· DESCRIBE ADJUDICATIVE DUTIES OF courtservice workers
Please see the following below, a denial of service with reprisal does not seem to need discrimination to hear or rule on the matter before the court;
PLEASE SEE CASE LAWS
Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)
Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569
Morgan v. Herman Miller Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII)
Marineland of Canada Inc., 2005 HRTO 30,
“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination”
[38] Pursuant to David Muir , in Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462;
“[1] The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on February 11, 2011.
[2] On January 17, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the corporate respondent in which it directed that a Response to the Application must be filed with the Tribunal not later than February 21, 2012.
[3] As of the date of this Interim Decision the corporate respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to it been returned. [4] An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred may lead to various orders, including monetary compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a response or participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against individual and corporate respondents without their participation. The corporate respondent's attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which reads as follows:
5.5 Where an Application is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may:
a) deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application;
b) proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent;
c) deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding;
d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.
[5] The applicant has provided an address and fax number for the corporate respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the corporate respondent by regular mail and fax.
[6] If the corporate respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a Response with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the corporate respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.
Other Matters
[7] In his Application the applicant identified Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, court staff, as respondents. Due to an administrative error these individuals have not been delivered copies of this Application and have not had an opportunity respond. A copy of the Application and a copy of the Tribunal’s file will be delivered to the individual respondents who will be required to file a Response within 35 days of receiving the Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.
[8] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of July, 2012.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
David Muir
Vice-chair “
(Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462, File Number: 2011-08103-I , Adjudicator: David Muir )
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
26.3 A Request for Reconsideration must include:
a) reasons for the request, including the basis upon which the Tribunal is asked to grant the request for reconsideration;
b) submissions in support of the request; and,
c) remedy or relief sought.
26.5 A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:
a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or
b) the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or
c) the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or 33 April 30, 2014
d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
REASONS FOR REQUEST (26.3 (a.):
PREMISE:
1.) Did COURT REPORTERS produce transcript in accordance with the rules of evidence and that are acceptable as evidence in the court?
2.) Are the COURT REPORTERS TRANSCRIPTS certified?
3.) Art the COUR REPORTERS TRANSCRIPTS produced in accordance with transcript rules?
4.) Are court reporters orders still pending?
5.) Did COURT REPORTERS provide equal service to the Applicant in accordance with rules and laws?
6.) Did COURT REPORTERS deny the Applicant a fair hearing by suppressing evidence?
7.) Is there a CONTRAVENTION NATURAL JUSTICE?
8.) Is there CONTRAVENTION PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS?
9.) Is there a contradiction of CASE LAW?
10.) Is there a contradiction of of the HRTO RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, and does the matte conform to some of the conditions in Section 26.5 of the Human Rights act for RECONSIDERATION?
{…}
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
|
WAYNE FERRON -versus- John Gerretsen et al |
|
|
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th floor, Toronto, ON M7A 2A3 Phone: 416-326-1519 ___________________________ RECONSIDERATION for honesty, honour, integrity, fairness, equity, and the application of DUE PROCESS OF LAW and the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW ____________________________________________ Wayne FERRON VAGABOND |
There are no posts in this folder...
- 1096 reads