DOC-X VOLUME 0: APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION 0.) ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Information Nos.: C51190

court of appeal for ontario

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

- and -

WAYNE FERRON Applicant

DOC-X

VOLUME 0

APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION

FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

0.) ACCESS TO JUSTICE

0.) ACCESS TO JUSTICE:

LONG FACTUM:

[1] The Crown on May 14, 2010 advised the Court that the Applicant’s Factum was very long. The Crown had agreed outside of the court at the Crown’s office with the Applicant to file the APPELLANT’S FACTUM(C51190), with attention to a single Judge. During May 14, 2010, the presiding Justice asserted that the Factum was not before him and he advised that a long extended factum would probable not be excepted by the Court. Hence, the reason for the challenge to Rule 16. Given the Applicant’s profile, long extended documents is the only means given to the Applicant in prudently arguing his matter in seeking the ends of fair and equitable justice.

[2] Long extended documents for another other Applications are APPLICATION FOR APPLICATION/APPEARANCE TRANSCRIPTS AND FURTHER DISCLOSURE AND DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE(C51190), to be heard before the panel, pursuant to Justice Gillese endorsement under item 3:

R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190)

Gillese J.A.

January 22, 2010

Mr. Ferron appears today asking for various heads of relief including orders thatthe Crown prepare the Appeal Book in this matter and pay for any transcripts that are necessary.

As I understand it, Mr. Ferron wishes to appeal a decision rendered by Justice Healey sitting on summary conviction appeal from a decision of Kenkel J. For him to appeal, he must first obtain leave to appeal. Thus, the focus of this order will be to take the steps necessary to achieve that. Therefore, I order as follows:

1. If an extension of time is necessary for the filing of the Notice seeking

leave to appeal, it is granted and the extension is for 1 month from today;

2. The Crown shall produce the materials necessary for the motion for leave

to appeal, including whatever transcripts it feels are necessary and a

summary of what it believes Mr. Ferron's position on appeal is;

3. Mr. Ferron is free to argue at the oral hearing of the motion for leave to appeal that he wishes further transcripts. It is for the judge hearing the motion to determine whether such additional transcripts are necessary.

The Crown has suggested that Mr. Ferron may wish to have this matter dealt with similarly to an inmate appeal as this would give him access to duty counsel, among other things. If Mr. Ferron chooses to follow this route, he is to advise the Crown and together with the Crown, arrange to have this matter transferred to a in-person appeal court to be spoken to.

(Gillese J.A., January 22, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190))

[3] Extended documents for another Applications are TO ADMIT FRESH EVIDENCE (C51190) to be heard before the panel, pursuant to Justice Laskin endorsement of the Applicant’s MOTION FOR DIRECTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE(M38706), which was indefinitely adjourned and is still an outstanding motion which the Applicant has found impossible to reconvene despite many visits to the Registrar:

“R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)

Laskin J.A.

May 14, 2010

Mr. Ferron's requests to file a long factum and to obtain the Crown's consent to a fresh evidence application are premature. The factum Mr. Ferron proposes to file is not before me. Moreover, he has not yet prepared and filed a fresh evidence application. Mr. Ferron also seeks transcripts of the set date appearances and appearance before the summary conviction appeal court leading up the hearing of the appeal.

Ms. Stuart, counsel for the Crown, has agreed to investigate whether these additional transcripts are necessary. However, it should be pointed out that what is pending before this court is a motion for leave to appeal from the decision of the summary conviction appeal court.

Further, Mr. Ferron seeks additional disclosure of items that he does not have. Again, Ms. Stuart has agreed to look into these matters.

Once Ms. Stuart has made these investigations, she will communicate to Mr. Ferron the Crown's position in writing. Mr. Ferron must understand that in the light of what he has asked for these investigations will take some time.

Pending these investigations, and report to Mr. Ferron, this motion is adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar.”

(Laskin J.A., May 14, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190))

[4]

“The Crown has suggested that Mr. Ferron may wish to have this matter dealt with similarly to an inmate appeal as this would give him access to duty counsel, among other things. If Mr. Ferron chooses to follow this route, he is to advise the Crown and together with the Crown, arrange to have this matter transferred to a in-person appeal court to be spoken to.

(Gillese J.A., January 22, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190))

Despite the directions of Justice Gillese endorsement, the Applicant was herded into the inmate Appeal stream void of any conversation or discussion with the Crown , at a time when the Crown’s motive and credibility was in question.

[5]

“R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)

David Watt J.A.

August 27, 2010

This application seeks relief that this court is not authorized to grant. It is

dismissed. This application for leave to appeal should be transferred to the inmate/in person list to ensure ongoing supervision. The respondent will provide copies of transcripts already prepared to the applicant.”

(David Watt J.A., August 27, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))

[6]

“3. Mr. Ferron is free to argue at the oral hearing of the motion for leave to appeal that he wishes further transcripts. It is for the judge hearing the motion to determine whether such additional transcripts are necessary.”

(Gillese J.A., January 22, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190))

[7]

“There is no need to prepare transcripts of other appearances.

The Crown is permitted to borrow the audio and video recordings that were exhibits at trial.

The appeal book is to be completed by January 15, 2010.

Adjourned to February 7, 2011 TBST, hopefully to set a date for the appeal hearing.”

(MacPherson J.A., December 13, 2010, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190), This typed version is not official)

[8] The Applicant have prepare my documents at great expense and effort to argue for Transcripts and outstanding disclosure, absent the Application Record and now the said document is being refused.

“Mr. Ferron's requests to file a long factum and to obtain the Crown's consent to a fresh evidence application are premature. The factum Mr. Ferron proposes to file is not before me. Moreover, he has not yet prepared and filed a fresh evidence application. Mr. Ferron also seeks transcripts of the set date appearances and appearance before the summary conviction appeal court leading up the hearing of the appeal.

(Laskin J.A., May 14, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190))

[9] The standards of proof is high for the matters at issue. So a detailed argument with very strong support are absolutely necessary, beside constitutional issues are involved. Hence the length.

[10] The Applicant will have to give arguments for 3 applications, plus leave to appeal in 20 minutes. That is 5 minutes per application; and 1 minute per issue, and less than 26 seconds for each supporting points. So, the Applicant has no choice but to put arguments on paper!

[11] The Applicant diligently tried to deal with some of these issues during the perfection of the Leave to Appeal. If one can call it that, since he had no meaningful choices or opportunity in the inmate Appeal Court. He was only given the Courts position on Application/Appearance Transcripts and outstanding Further Disclosure recently, after the Crown disclosed position on its 9 months investigation of the Summary Conviction Criminal matter before this honourable court.

[12] Since the Applicant was determined not to be credible, no weight is given to is evidence or analysis or theories. Furthermore, he is self-represented and not a legal professional, so he must diligently prove all assertions and allegations with well cited sources and examples. The Rule 16(5) at issue within the context of the Applicant’s special case, prevents the filing and arguing of a full answer within the context of section 7, 11 and 15 for the TRIAL DE NOVO. It also prevent the Applicant from prudently addressing the respective Justices concerns, inferences and allegations in their reasons for judgment.

[13] Given that their is a upper limit of 20 minutes on Criminal Appeals on questions of law for Summary Conviction matters at THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO; and their is about 75 points of issues supporting the Applicants plea Merits in his matter before the court, this works out to about 26 seconds to address each point. Therefore, it is a necessary and sufficient condition to have many documents supporting The Applicant’s argument, whom is forced to operate within the constraints enforced by the said courts.

“Given my profile, I need to be detailed in my arguments and give prudent proof of issues. I can not use one line explanations or sentences to bring my point across, such as I have experienced in lawyer’s documents containing their arguments. I am not a legal professional. I do-not have the credibility of a lawyer nor do my words carry legal weight. I am not going to fool myself in this fact.

For example, it took me about over two years of repetitively presenting my arguments to respective Justices and Crown counsel with detailed citation to real evidence as witness by the courts, evidence pointing to mistake in the EXHIBITS and mislabeling of the EXHIBITS. Although the Crown has finally conceded after I inferred conspiracy outside of Court that my allegations of mislabeling and mistake in EXHIBITS has merits, the Crown still refuses to disclose to me a certified copy of EXHIIT 2, which it promised off the record in open court after I trustingly gave my written consent for access to EXHIBIT 2 and EXHIBIT 6B. In-fact, the Crown made similar promises in the lower courts; I guess I have been a fool on many occasions?

I live in the real world. I have no credibility! The Trial Judge stripped away all my credibility and integrity. The Crown seized on this opportunity to dig my credibility hole deeper to unretrievable depth. This is a barrier to entry in proving ones innocence. This is an erected gigantic wall, which must be scale in convincing the panel of the merits of my matter. And scale it I must!”

(Wayne Ferron, Applicant)

[14] The disclosure of certified copy of EXHIT 2 (CD RECORDING 07-70285), is still outstanding. The Crown recently disclosed uncertified copies of Transcriptions of a DVD. This issue has been on going since 2009 at the lower courts.

Does the findings of MacKay v. Manitoba apply, for the Applicants pending constitutional issues?

Please see SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION (C51190).

RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:

[15] Pursuant to New Approaches to Criminal Trials THE REPORT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL TRIALS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

dated May, 2006 and presented to Chief Justice Smith:

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

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

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

i) Rule 2.02:

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

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

(Report to Chief Justice, http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/scj/en/reports/ctr/index.htm)

[16] Pursuant to RULE 650.(3) and 802.(1) the accuse is entitled to full answer and defence.

[17] the Applicant was never notified in writing of the completion of any of the nine disclose and filed TRANSCRIPTS, pursuant to Rule 40 and Rule 8.

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

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

[18]

COMPLETION of TRANSCRIPTS

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

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

TRANSCRIPTS

No application to inmate appeals

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

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

Date of order and completion

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

Completion not to be suspended

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

Notification of completion

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

[19] The Applicant was never notified in writing of the completion of the Transcripts ordered by the Crown with due diligence and in accordance with Rule 40.06(11), Rule 40.06(12), Rule 8.(15) and Rule 8.(16).

[20] The Applicant had ordered all the Transcripts in December 2009, but could not afford to pay for them. This was a reaction to the Crown’s letter advising the Applicant that a dismissal of the Appeal would be sought if Transcripts were not filed. Furthermore, the Crown affirmed that Transcript production would take about 2 years.

[21] The Crown started to order the Transcripts pursuant to Justice Gillese orders (Jan 27, 2011), on May 14, 2010:

I. the Applicant has received not one single COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPTS COMPLETION;

II. the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Registrar has not received the COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPTS COMPLETION as for has he knows;

III. the Applicant has requested a certified copy of the aforesaid document. Furthermore, the Applicant, was unable to find one while reviewing his file at the said Court.

IV. many of the disclosed TRANSCRIPTS certification, pursuant to subsection 5(2) of the EVIDENCE ACT are in question?

V. the Applicant is unsure if Ontario regulation 587/91 Courts of Justice Act, January 1, 1990 is being adhere in the certification process of TRANSCRIPTS, thereby bringing the integrity to the Leave to Appeal evidence into question. Is the rules of EVIDENCE ACT relevant in judicial process?

VI. contrary to Rule 21(3) which requires the respondent factum to be filed at least 10 days before the week in which the appeal is to be heard; the RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES, was left on Friday, October 2^nd, 2009 in the late evening while the Applicant was not home, even though the Appeal Hearing was on, Monday, October 5^that 2:15 p.m.. It was signed on September 30^th, 2009 by Jeffrey Costain, Assistant Crown Attorney;

VII. the Crown has continually failed to cross examine the Applicant’s Affidavit of reasonable belief in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 39). This is in opposition to the definition and spirit of an adversarial judicial system and a free and democratic system of governance. Rule 39 require that due-diligence be shown in the cross examination of Affidavits.

[22] Has the aforementioned irregularities and contravention of the stated rules prejudice the process against the Applicant and bastardized the integrity of the LEAVE TO APPEAL?

FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP:

[23] Pursuant to Rosalie Silberman Abella Justice, Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Administration of Justice has a fiduciary relationship with the public.

“12. The Committee therefore recommends that, in determining whether a prosecution is in the public interest, the agent of the Attorney General should consider the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, and the effect of the incident or prosecution on public order. “

(Martin Report, Report of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure, and Resolution Discussions, page 92-93)

[24]

“To summarize, then, the Committee views the focus of its attention, the early stages of the criminal process, as of superordinate importance for a number of reasons. First, these stages are an important part of the criminal law, which itself is deeply necessary to an organized and peaceful society. Second, the criminal law is a social instrument to be used sparingly because it is costly, blunt, and potentially oppressive. Any concern that a social process be resorted to sparingly, inevitably focuses concern on the early stages where in the that process is invoked, and wherein it gathers momentum. Third, the early stages of the criminal process have perhaps the broadest impact of any stage in that process. And fourth, the early stages represent the entirety of the criminal process for very many of its lay participants. This in turn places a premium on the fairness, openness, accountability, and cost-effectiveness of the system in its early stages.”

(Matin Report, REORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHARGE SCREENING DISCLOSURE, AND RESOLUTION DISCUSSIONS, page 19)

[25] Article. 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada is bound by its signature is made reference to in R. v. Rowbotham;

“... the concept of the right to counsel had evolved into a social right or a

human right implying an obligation on the state to provide counsel for an accused who lacks sufficient means to pay a lawyer: see Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections, 1969 (The Ouimet Report), pp. 137-8. This evolution is reflected in the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was signed by Canada, contains the following provision:

Article 14 - FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS:

3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:

(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or

through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he

does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal

assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;”

( Court of Appeal for Ontario, R. v. Rowbotham, page 57, para 2)

[26] The Officers notes, the Officers testimonies in the Trial Transcripts, the video tape evidence and the audio tape evidence are all void of any instances of the Officers in question informing the Applicant of his rights and implementing them forthwith in accordance with the Charter in a meaningful way.

[27] The Hearing Transcripts, The Pretrial and the Appeal Hearing Transcripts are all void of any of the presiding justices informing the accused of his right to legal competent representation and inquiring of the accused if he wished to wave the said rights.

[28] The Trial Transcripts and the Application Transcripts Are all void of ,The Ontario Provincial Court Judge presiding over the Summary Conviction Trial, informing the accused of his minimum trial rights to legal competent representation and inquiring of the accused if he wished to wave the said rights. There is without question a none action or act of omission, resulting in an error of Law, concerning informing and insuring the Applicant received his minimum Trial Rights in accordance with Article 14 and the Charter in a meaningful way by the Honourable Trial Justice.

[29] The state has a constitutional obligation to insure that indigent accused receive a fair trial and is represented by competent counsel in accordance with the Charter and other given Rights.

[30] The trial judge has an obligation to ensure the accused receive a fair trial and is informed that he has the right to be represent by competent legal professional counsel.

The Crown Attorney has an obligation to disclose disclosure in a timely manner to ensure fairness, judiciousness, and not to abuse the process, so that the accuse defence may have the opportunity to give full answer and to conduct the said defence unimpeded. The Police has a duty to deal fairly and act in “good faith” within the constraints of the Human Rights and Canadian Charter of Rights in the application and enforcement of the Code and are bound by there obligation to inform the accuse of his rights and insure those rights are implemented forthwith.

In view of the aforementioned facts. There should have been a staying of the proceedings until the State fulfilled its constitutional obligation, to avoid further Charter violations and the continuation of Human Rights violations.

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION:

[31]

(J. Santino, Employment Insurance Commission, Insurance agent)” Your appeal will not be heard until the documents are received.”

[32]

(Mathieu Joncas, Counsel for the respondent)” The Commission asserts that both issues are related and the final outcome of Mr. Ferron's appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal will have an impact on the Commission's position in the present matter.”

[33]

(Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, 2003 SCC 63, para 11)” 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”

[34] The resultant indigency, financial destitution and bankruptcy was a foreseeable consequence of the judgement conviction. The First act of the Employment Insurance Commission was to deny the Applicant’s claim for benefit entitlement, based upon the Judgement conviction of the Ontario Provincial Court.

“As I advised you by phone 8-12-2008, a copy of the notice of suspension or a copy of the driving prohibition in which the conditions for the suspension are required in order to proceed with your appeal. In order to expedite matters please fax the above to my attention immediately. Your appeal will not be heard until the documents are received.”

(J. Santino, Employment Insurance Commission, Insurance agent)

[35] The Employment Insurance Commission, a Federal Institution under a different jurisdiction is directly affecting a Provincial Court Judicial System and its criminal process byway of and unlawful decision. The said federal institution successfully transfered its obligations and responsibilities to the Provincial Courts and Municipal social institutions by helping to force the Applicant into financial destitution and bankruptcy.

[36] The Provincial Social Services, (Ontario Works), is now forced to support a stigmatized and criminalized individual living below the poverty line in the fringes of society. The Applicant’s financial destitution determines accessibility to legal professional representation and legal materials; it also determines when and if required court documents for the matter before the court are produced and file. When and if the necessary required transcripts can be ordered and filed. When and if the necessary required Motions and Applications are filed. When and how the Applicant travels to attend Court.

[37] Moreover, the Applicants capabilities and logistics concerning researching, preparation, presentation and legal options to give full answer for the matter before this honourable court; the Applicant’s efforts in his defence are impeded, strangled and severally constrained. In short, the Applicant’s guaranteed legal rights to give full answer and defence byway of section 7, 11 and 15 are severely affected. The accuse is after-all presumed to be innocent. In short, the Applicant’s effectiveness to do battle in an adversarial judicial has been severely blunted.

[38] Moreover, the Employment Insurance Commission has a direct bearing on the fairness, equity and efficiency of the Provincial Criminal process by linking there decision on the Applicant’s social insurance claim to the judgement conviction. The EI COMMISSION’S HAS A DIRECT EFFECT ON THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. Money is the fuel which keeps the wheel of justice turning.

[39] The Employment Insurance Commission’s actions based on there policies which intern is derived from section 30 and 100 of there Federal legislation, is used in essence to burn the social safety net from under the Applicant, before his matter has exhausted the judicial process and the criminal appeal process has given a final and binding adjudication.

[40] Not only has the Employment Insurance Commission directly affected the Applicant’s life liberty and the pursuit of happiness; but also, his capacity and logistical capability to give full answer in accordance with section 7 of the Charter to the administration of justice.

[41] The Applicant’s psychological security derive from financial security is shatter and replaced with stress and uncertainty. The Applicant also has children who are dependents, so there Charter rights are also violated.

[42] Furthermore, the judgement conviction cannot be used as proof of guilt when the matter is still before an Appellate Court and the Criminal Appeal process has not been exhausted pursuant to S. 22.1(1) of the Evidence Act. This is an abuse of process and a violation of the Trust relationship with the State, the Employment Insurance Commission and the Administration of Justice, in the Applicant’s respectful opinion:

“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. “

(Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, 2003 SCC 63, para 11)

ONTARIO LEGAL AID:

[43] (Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry, 2007 Report of the Court of Appeal for Ontario http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/coa/en/archives/ocs/2007.htm)” Legal aid is perhaps the single most important mechanism we have to turn the dream of equal rights into a reality.{...} legal aid does make a deep and essential contribution to our social fabric and indeed to our very way of life.{...}The concept of legal aid is, of course, directly linked to the issue of access to justice generally.”

[44] Ontario Legal Aid Official Policy” This will confirm the application of our coverage policies in criminal cases where appeals are involved. As you are aware, coverage is restricted to cases where there is a probability of incarceration.”

[45] There are Legal Aid letters informing the Applicant of his denial of Ontario Legal Aid benefits and the quashing of his subsequent Legal Aid Appeal, (given 8 days to appeal). There is a letter from Employment Insurance, informing the Applicant of his disqualification of EI Commission Benefits Entitlement, as a direct foreseeable result of the judgement conviction.

[46] There seem to be a false notion, based on a “false right” that Legal representation is readily available to all who need and request it. Asper Ontario Legal Aid policy;

“SUBJECT: Conviction and/or Sentence Appeals where a non-custodial sentence imposed

__________________________________________________________

This will confirm the application of our coverage policies in criminal cases where appeals are involved. As you are aware, coverage is restricted to cases where there is a probability of incarceration.”

[47] This is in accordance with Legal Aid Policy, as stated above. The Claimant falls outside the aforementioned constraints of Legal Aid Official Policy and legislation pursuant to Ontario Legal Aid reasons for denial of financial support. At least if you are incarcerated, you have a place to sleep and food to eat.

“The basic purpose of legal aid is to serve the public by enabling each of its members to have access to the kind of legal assistance that is essential for the understanding and assertion of our individual rights, obligation and freedoms under the law.

We live in a highly sophisticated society with a highly developed sense of the need for positive intervention to protect the basic rights and freedoms of the disadvantaged, and to ensure continuing access to the rights and freedoms which we proclaim as fundamental to a civil, humane and just society.”

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

[48] Ontario Legal Aid, for the second time denied the Applicant’s application for Legal Aid’s financial support. The Superior Court of Justice, was demanding that the Applicant File and serve the necessary Transcripts.

Pursuant to James L. Wilkins in LEGAL AID IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS ” The inexperienced defendant, whether indigent or able to afford counsel of his own choosing, is often completely ignorant of his rights as an accused person”

“XVII : COMPILATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations Regarding Legal Aid

1. The committee recommends that the criminal law legal aid tariff be amended to enable counsel to bill Legal Aid Ontario for up to two hours for preparation and attendance at one judicial pre-trial conference in the Superior Court of Justice. For any subsequent pre-trial conference ordered by a judge, counsel should be paid an hourly rate for preparation and the attendance. These fees would be tariff items, without counsel having to ask for the exercise of discretion by the Legal Accounts Office.”

(http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/scj/en/reports/ctr/index.htm)

THE CROWN:

[49] Pursuant to R. v. Rowbotham,” where the prosecution insists on proceeding with the trial in breach of the accused's Charter right to a fair trial.”

[50] Pursuant to R. v. McGibbon, ” It is submitted that proceeding to trial in the absence of a clear and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel by the accused violated the accused's constitutional rights and constituted reversible error on the part of the judge.”

[51] Pursuant to the MARTIN REPORT “To summarize, then, the Committee views the focus of its attention, the early stages of the criminal process, as of superordinate importance for a number of reasons. First, these stages are an important part of the criminal law, which itself is deeply necessary to an organized and peaceful society. Second, the criminal law is a social instrument to be used sparingly because it is costly, blunt, and potentially oppressive.”

“The Role of the Crown

[237] Justice Minden also addressed the role of Crown Counsel, suggesting that the best advice for prosecutors before a pre-trial conference was to "grab the file and give it a shake", reading, as all good Crowns do, between the lines, applying analytical skills and good judgment. The Crown should familiarize her or himself with the preliminary inquiry transcript, or at least speak to the Crown who conducted the hearing or discovery. The preparation should focus on what evidence actually exists to support the allegations, the strengths and weaknesses of that evidence, and whether there are holes that can be filled. After this analysis, the Crown should be in a position to give the pre-trial judge his or her best and most candid assessment, including whether there is room to compromise.

[238] As is the case with defence counsel, the Crown should examine how best to pare down the trial, without really giving up anything, to make proceedings more streamlined and comprehensible. The Crown should also identify before the pre-trial conference the issues upon which agreements or admissions will be sought.

[239] Crowns should also examine the number of counts in the indictment. Why proceed on a 16-count indictment, if a 4-count indictment, covering the most serious allegations, would better focus the trial? If the factual basis of 2 counts are the same and would result in the application of the Kienapple[60]principle, is there a need to proceed on both counts?

{...}

Issues to be Addressed at the Pre-trial Conference

[254] Disclosure: Given the Crown's obligation to provide disclosure in a timely fashion, the number of cases in which outstanding disclosure issues remain after committal for trial is surprising. While some cases involve delayed production of items the Crown agrees must be disclosed, many involve items the Crown believes it cannot or is unable to disclose.

[255] The current law precludes the pre-trial conference judge from making remedial orders on contested issues such as disclosure.[62] However, that does not mean that disputed disclosure issues have to proceed to a s. 7 Charter application.

{...}

XV : POLICE ISSUES

[407] As noted in the section on causes of delays in trials, a continuing cause is delayed or inadequate disclosure. While we acknowledge this significant issue continues to be addressed by the Ministry of the Attorney General and by Police Services across the province, particularly in terms of the costs of disclosure, this problem has plagued the criminal justice system since before the release of Stinchcombe in 1991. We strongly encourage all parties to resolve the outstanding issues, and implement all of the outstanding recommendations of the Martin Report and the Criminal Justice Review.

Recommendations regarding Police Services

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

(Report to Chief Justice, http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/scj/en/reports/ctr/index.htm)

FALSE ASSUMPTION:

[52] It is falsely assumed that the Applicant after his financial devastation is capable of mounting an effective defence in the defence of his innocence or restoring his life back to normalcy;

[53] Pursuant to the Bill of Rights Preamble, Preamble ” The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions”

[54] Pursuant to the R.S.Q., chapter C-12 Charter of human rights and freedoms, Preamble” Whereas the rights and freedoms of the human person are inseparable from the rights and freedoms of others and from the common well-being”

[55] Pursuant to THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, Preamble “The States Parties to the present Covenant, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights...”

CHARACTER ASSASSINATION:

[56] Recall that Officer Burd, the first Officer that had first contact with the Applicant, first words to the Applicant was to call him “CRACK HEAD”. Then Staff Sgt Ringler stated in his notes that they, meaning the Officers of interest for this matter believed the Applicant was involved with “CRACK COCAINE”. Then The-Officer-In-charge, Officer Broughton suspended the Rights of the Applicant until he was not under the influence of unnamed substance, with the inference of illicit drugs. Then D.C. Stribbell, the officer tasked to investigate the matter before the court stated in his notes, that the Applicant took “CRACK COCAINE” in the past. Moreover, D.C. Stribbell prepared and filed the SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT, which had supporting arguments alleging that the Applicant used “CRACK COCAIN” in the past. In-fact some of the YRP’s investigative papers claims that the Applicant “CONSUMED DRUGS” and/or alcohol.

[57] Assassination of the Application’s character to destroy any and all credibility he had. So that no one would believe him. But he never based is defence or arguments on his credibility. Although his defence was made impossible hard, it was not impossible!

“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. ”

(Jeffrey Costain for the Crown, RESPONDENT’S FACTUM, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTE APPELLATE COURT)

[58] Asper the Typed OFFICER’S NOTES, at about 12:45 PM on 28^th of March 2007, by Staff Sergeant Bruce Ringler (193);

“He was --- at scene but not talking.

They suspect impaired by drugs

- cocaine or crack cocaine.

Struggle at scene, non - cooperative.

Cuffed & put into cell 3DM5.

--- pulled shirt over his face.”

(Staff Sergeant Bruce Ringler (193), Typed OFFICER’S NOTES, page 32 at 12:45 PM)

[59] Asper the Typed OFFICER’S NOTES, at about 5:45 AM on 28th of March 2007, by Detective Greg Stribbell (529);

“5:45 AM 10-6 3DHQ A10/Sgt. 07-70285 - Speaking to S/sgt. Ledger re the incident,

he explained that D/C Broughton and P/C Burd had arrested him last night for impaired by drugs, took 5 officers to handcuff him. Has also been charged with resist arrest. Originally handed his licence but has not said anything, will not speak to anyone. Wife Mrs. Feron 476-1092

S/gt. Ringler called her last night and she advised that he does no do drugs or drink. Has used crack in the past, but not for a long time. ”

(Detective Greg Stribbell (529), Typed OFFICER’S NOTES, page 14 at 5:45 AM)

[60] Asper the SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, prepared at about 13:59 hours on 28th of March 2007, by Officer Stribbell (529);

“D/C Broughton had gone back to his vehicle and was attempting to call Rogers Cable to confirm if the accused actually worked for them and if they had any idea what was wrong with him. His behavior was such that D/C Broughton thought that

he had been using drugs. ”

(Officer Stribbell (529), SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT)

VICARIOUS WAR:

[61] The Crown was advising the Applicant that there position was to have the appeal dismiss for failure to file and serve the necessary Transcripts.

[62] The Employment Insurance Commission position was, there will be no social insurance financial support benefit pursuant to the judgement conviction which infers misconduct. The Ontario Legal Aide position was that they do not financially support criminal appeals with a probability of no jail term.

[63] The court reporters position was that work on the transcription of the Transcript would not begin until the necessary down-payment of money was received. As a personal opinion from the perspective of an indigent individual, this is a “financial imprisonment of the Transcripts” and “financial barrier to the end of justice”! Consequently, this was holding fairness, equity and efficiency hostage. All the aforementioned elements concatenate to form the perfect legal storm and erecting a “barrier to entry to access to justice”.

[64] There are Legal Aid letters informing the Applicant of his denial of Ontario Legal Aid benefits and the quashing of his subsequent Legal Aid Appeal, (given 8 days to appeal). There is a letter from Employment Insurance, informing the Applicant of his disqualification of EI Commission Benefits Entitlement, as a direct foreseeable result of the judgment conviction.

[65] There seem to be a false notion, based on a “false right” that Legal representation is readily available to all who need and request it.

[66] The Employment Insurance Commission position was, there will be no social insurance financial support benefit pursuant to the judgement conviction which infers misconduct.

[67] There are Legal Aid letters informing the Applicant of his denial of Ontario Legal Aid benefits and the quashing of his subsequent Legal Aid Appeal, (given 8 days to appeal).

[68] There seem to be a false notion, based on a preceived “false right” that Legal representation is readily available to all who need and request it, this runs contrary to the interest of justice.

[69] This is an impassable impediment to meeting the ends of justice, which creates a “legal barrier to entry” for the said appeal and subsequent proving of innocence in the new trial. This in the Applicant’s opinion lead toward a contravention of the fundamental rule of justice and a violation of the accused fair trial rights.

[70] If one is receiving Employment benefit or even Welfare, this may be enough to deny ones Legal Aid Benefits. The requirements to receive legal Aid benefits is very stringent. The Applicant advised the courts that he was not able to afford a Lawyer and he had no choice but to defend himself byway of unrepresented litigation.

“Consequently, an accused who was too poor to hire a lawyer was disadvantaged. Sir James Stephen, writing over 100 years ago, said: "[w]hen a prisoner is undefended his position is often pitiable, even if he has a good case". (Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England, vol. 1 (1883), p. 442). In R. v. Littlejohn and Tirabasso (1978), 41 C.C.C. (2d) 161, this court accepted 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. However, in modern times but prior to the advent of the Charter, the concept of the right to counsel had evolved into a social right or a human right implying an obligation on the state to provide counsel for an accused who lacks sufficient means to pay a lawyer: see Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections, 1969 (The Ouimet Report), pp. 137-8. “

( Court of Appeal for Ontario, R. v. Rowbotham, page 57, para 2)

[71] Many of the Employment Insurance Commission Tribunal’s adjudications are based on unresolved Criminal decisions.

But, the Civil Courts tells you to wait for the completion of a criminal matter before seeking restitution or the ends of justice, because of the inconsistencies and none uniformities a pending unresolved criminal decisions breeds.

[72] The Federal case law say you can, within the context of Employment Insurance Commission benefit entitlement. Some of which are based on misconduct which intern is base on unresolved pending criminal matters. The common element here is, that the State has the advantage in both case.

[73] When an accuse has been unjustly criminalize and his life unnecessarily destroyed. He has been devastated financially and socially, vicariously by the States policies, protocols, State Agents and unspoken political understanding VIA its agents and institutions. Thus, destroying the Relation-Ship of Trust which existed between the accuse, the State, the Employment Insurance Commission and the Administration of Justice.

[74] Furthermore, the State in vicariously breaching its equitable duty and shattering the Trust and Confidence of the said accuse in a free democratic system of governance, does an actionable wrong against the Applicant. The State in vicariously destroying its foe initially, at the beginning of the matter is in effect crippling the accuse before doing battle in an adversarial judicial system. Where is the presumption of innocence.

[75] The skillful use of time, and limitation periods are concatenated with policies to vanquish a foe, a member of the collective, at the start of the battle. The innocent defendant's defenses has been circumvented before being establish. Thus, the accused has lost before the battle has even started. The ends of justice of the Applicant has been predetermined from the offset of the battle, by the rapid erection of financial barriers along with the social, financial and legal assassination of the innocent accused.

[76] This is in effect destroying the Applicant’s effective functionality in his defense against the overwhelming power of the collective. All that is left is to choreograph an apparent fair battle for the imaginary equitable outcome as a spectacle for the public.

[77] This closes the door or impedes proof of innocence along with victim compensation, restitution, accountability and the healing of the social wounds that was to follow. Thus, there is no inoculation or preventative medicine for our rotting social flesh of our beloved moral society.

[78] Does the Relationship of Trust which exist between the State, the Administration of Justice, and the individual mean anything?

Does the Rules of Criminal Procedure mean anything?

Does the Applicant has unimpeded access to fair and equitable justice?

Does the Applicant has unimpeded access to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Does the Applicant has unimpeded access to his Human Rights?

Does the Applicant has unimpeded access to The international Covenant of Civil and Political Rights?

FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP:

[79] There is a relationship of trust which exist between the individual, the State and its institutions. A fiduciary relationship!

“2. Process Preoccupation

We have moved from being a society governed by the rule of law to being a society governed by the law of rules. We have become so completely seduced by the notion, borrowed from criminal law, that process ensures justice, that we have come to believe that process is justice. Yet to members of the public who find themselves mired for years in the civil justice system's process, process may be the obstacle to justice. It may be time - again - to rethink how civil disputes are resolved. For a start, we need to sever the philosophies of dispute resolution in the civil and criminal justice systems. The dispute in criminal law is between an individual and the state. Process protects that individual's presumption of innocence from the overwhelming power of the state, and necessarily so. But civil justice is usually a dispute between two private parties. Can we honestly say that the fair resolution of such a dispute requires several years and resort to hundreds of rules? It would be worth asking a client who has just lost a lengthy trial how good he or she feels about having had the benefit of an elaborate procedural journey. Would it really surprise anyone if we learned from such a client that the result was of more interest than the process, and that all he or she wanted was a fair chance to be heard? People want their day in court, not their years.

Even alternate dispute resolution mechanisms, hailed at first as the expeditious alternatives to cumbersome court procedures, are themselves turning into procedural mimics of the court system. Arbitrations all too often end up being almost as lengthy, complex, or expensive as a court case.

In 1906, the then Dean of Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, made a speech to the American Bar Association entitled

"The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice."

And what was the main cause of dissatisfaction in 1906 according to Pound? Uncertainty, delay and expense ... [are] direct results of the ... backwardness of our procedure. The effect of our exaggerated contentious procedure is not only to irritate parties, witnesses and jurors in particular cases, but to give to the whole community a false notion of the purpose and end of law. Let's put Pound's almost 100-year old observation in historical context. The horse and buggy of 1906 have been replaced by cars and planes; morphine for medical surgery has been replaced by anaesthetics, and the surgical knife by the laser; caveat emptor has been replaced by consumer law; child labour has been replaced, period; a whole network of social services and systems is in place to replace the luck of the draw that used to characterize employment relationships; the phonograph has been replaced by the compact disc player; the hegemony of the majority has been replaced by the assertive diversity of minorities; and adoring wives have been replaced by exhausted ones. And yet, with all these profound changes in how we travel, live, govern, and think, none of which would have been possible without fundamental experimentation and reform, we still conduct civil trials almost exactly the same way as we did in 1906. Any good litigator from 1906 could, with a few hours of coaching, feel perfectly at home in today's courtrooms. Could a doctor from 1906 feel the same way in an operating room? If the medical profession has not been afraid over the century to experiment with life in order to find better ways to save it, can the legal profession in conscience resist experimenting with old systems of justice in order to find better ways to deliver it?

How many lawyers could themselves afford the cost of litigating a civil claim from start to finish?

We cannot keep telling the public that this increasingly incomprehensible, complicated process is in their interests and for their benefit, because they are not buying it any more. If our defensive arguments make no sense to the public, how much sense can they be said to make, period. The public does not believe it should take years to decide where their children should live, whether their employer should have fired them, or whether their accident was compensable. Maybe for a constitutional case, but decidedly not for the resolution of a dispute between two private parties.

We cannot talk seriously about access to justice without getting serious about how inaccessible the result, not the system, is for most people. The public knows we are the only group who can change the process.

They are very interested in, but less understanding of, our explanations as to why we resist streamlining the system from the inside. When we say, "It can't be done," and the public asks, "Why not," they want a better reason than "Because we've always done it this way."

Our monopoly puts us in a fiduciary relationship with the public. We are the gatekeepers and groundskeepers of the fields of the law. As such, we should be on the front line for reform, taking on outmoded systems, and being seen to be putting the public before our pockets or our prestige. Process is the map, lawyers are the drivers, law is the highway, and justice is the destination. Lawyers are supposed to be experienced about the best, safest, and fastest way to get there. If, much of the time, they are unable to get there because the maps are too complicated, then, as Gertrude Stein said, "There's no there, there." And if there's no "there, there," there's no point in having a whole system to get to where almost no one can afford to go.

I know this has been a difficult time for the legal profession. Through it all, most lawyers carry on with pride and professionalism, and with more than a touch of frustration at their seeming inability to synchronize their professional reputations with fluctuating public expectations. There remains, however, one public expectation that does not fluctuate. It is the expectation that the profession will always, no matter the times or their permutations, behave professionally. It is an expectation to which the profession has always expressed a deep commitment, and it is an expectation to which most lawyers remain deeply committed.

The legal system represents the ideals of the public, and because as lawyers we are the interpreters and translators of those ideals, it is therefore a system that deserves our idealism, courageously and optimistically.

Having set the cluttered stage, what can be done to reinstate a commitment to professionalism as the lawyer's - and the public's perception of the lawyer's - transcendent vision? And, more particularly, what can be done by the Law Society?

The Law Society has two constituencies: lawyers and the public. These are utterly compatible and indispensably linked. The Law Society should be seen to be the profession's best professional voice and the public's best ear. Unfortunately, it is not seen at all, or, when it is seen, it is seen by lawyers when it announces a restrictive or expensive measure, and it is seen by the public when it announces the consequences of professional misconduct. These sightings may be unavoidable and, at times, even salutary, but they are not happy messages. Not that the Law Society needs to keep everyone happy. It can't. But if these anxiety-producing pronouncements are all we see, can we be faulted for wondering if there isn't a more positive message the Law Society could be seen to feel responsible for.

According to the Earnscliffe Report, the Law Society's Nielsen ratings ranged from "never watch" through "hardly watch" to "hate to watch." In other words, somewhere between irrelevant and obstructive.

This is troubling to someone like me who sees the Law Society theoretically as crucially relevant as the guardians both of our independence and of the public's confidence in our right to be independent. I see the report, therefore, as a wake-up call and a wonderful millennial opportunity for the Law Society to reformulate its relationship to its professional and general publics, and to redefine its functions accordingly.

It will undoubtedly be a difficult task, but as Isaiah Berlin observed, there's no pearl without some irritation to the oyster. “

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

[80] The ordinary reasonable person on the street, like the Applicant was at the start of the matter before the Criminal Courts, are not familiar with the nuances of the appeal process in the various respective Government institutions. Most are not even aware of the right to appeal. They just except what the State or representative of the State determines. The Applicant use to be like this. For example, when a determination is given, which is final and binding by a state institution. They do-not realize that this is a way to appeal to the respective Court of Appeal or apply for judicial review.

[81] The ordinary reasonable person Trust and abide by the Governments decisions and enforcement byway of public agents. Even though they may not like the adjudication, they abide by it. So when the Ontario Legal Aid tells you that you will not qualify for legal aide because of your spouse financial position, regardless of wether more burden on a families financial capabilities will collapse it and force the said family into financial destitution below the poverty line. You believe the public agent, because you believe and Trust the State. You have strong confidence in the government. You don’t fight them with limited resources when your children needs have to be provided for.

[82] It’s this genuine Trust and belief in the State which is repetitively being taken advantage of. This said confidence is continually being breached and the relationship of Trust with the State being continually being eroded. This said innocence's within the Applicant has been shattered, and he consequently has cast this naiveté aside!

[83] The York Regional Police has a duty to to deal honestly, fairly, equitably and in “good faith “ with members of the community, when about the business of Her Majesty the Queen.

[84] The presiding Justice of a trial has a duty to ensure that the accuse receive a fair and equitable trial; the accused must be given the opportunity to give full answer in accordance with section 7, 11 and 15 of the Charter. Moreover, the trial judge has inherent jurisdiction to ensure fairness and equity in the trial process.

[85] The State guarantees that the accuse will receive a fair and equitable process; moreover, that he will be given the opportunity to give full answer in accordance with the Charter and or any other existing rights. Furthermore, the State promise its citizen and the International community byway of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights that fair trial rights (Art: 14) will be adhered to. This is the Obligation owed to the accused. The State has repetitively failed within this regard.

“To sum up: where the trial judge finds that representation of an accused by counsel is essential to a fair trial, the accused, as previously indicated, has a constitutional right to be provided with counsel at the expense of the state if he or she lacks the means to employ one. Where the trial judge is satisfied that an accused lacks the means to employ counsel, and that counsel is necessary to ensure a fair trial for the accused, a stay of the proceedings until funded counsel is provided is an appropriate remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter where the prosecution insists on proceeding with the trial in breach of the accused's Charter right to a fair trial. It is unnecessary in this case to decide whether the trial judge in those circumstances would also be empowered to direct that Legal Aid or the appropriate Attorney-General pay the fees of counsel. “

( Court of Appeal for Ontario, R. v. Rowbotham, page 66, para 1)

[86] Furthermore, in R. v. McGibbon in the Court of Appeal for Ontario,

“Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial judge in this case had a duty to advise the appellant of his constitutional right to counsel at trial and to inquire as to whether he wished counsel. It is submitted that proceeding to trial in the absence of a clear and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel by the accused violated the accused's constitutional rights and constituted reversible error on the part of the judge.

The trial judge, of course, has a duty to the accused to see that he or she has a fair hearing and that duty will generally cast upon the judge an obligation to point out to the accused that he or she would be at a distinct disadvantage in proceeding without the assistance of competent counsel and that the accused is entitled to have such counsel.

Where the accused expressly desires counsel, it is clear that unless the accused has deliberately failed to retain counsel, or has discharged counsel, with the intent of delaying the process of the court, the trial judge should afford the accused an opportunity to retain counsel either at his expense or through the services of Legal Aid. If Legal Aid will not fund counsel it may be necessary at least in long complicated trials to stay the proceedings until counsel is funded. “

(Court of Appeal for Ontario , R. v. McGibbon, page 10, para 1 & 2)

[87] The resultant indigency, financial destitution and bankruptcy was a foreseeable consequence of the judgement conviction. The First act of the Employment Insurance Commission was to deny the Applicant’s claim for benefit entitlement, based upon the Judgement conviction of the Ontario Provincial Court.

“In Brissette (A-1342-92), the Federal Court of Appeal established the principle that commission of an offence or criminal act which resulted in a conviction under the Criminal Code constitutes misconduct liable to disqualification within the meaning of the Employment Insurance Act, to the extent that an essential condition of the employment ceases to be met resulting in dismissal.

As I advised you by phone 8-12-2008, a copy of the notice of suspension or a copy of the driving prohibition in which the conditions for the suspension are required in order to proceed with your appeal. In order to expedite matters please fax the above to my attention immediately. Your appeal will not be heard until the documents are received.”

(J. Santino, Employment Insurance Commission, Insurance agent)

[88] The Employment Insurance Commission, a Federal Institution under a different jurisdiction is directly affecting a Provincial Court judicial system and its criminal process byway of and unlawful decision. The said federal institution successfully transfered its obligations and responsibilities to the Provincial Courts and Municipal social institutions by helping to force the Applicant into financial destitution and bankruptcy.

[89] The Provincial Social Services, (Ontario Works), is now forced to support a stigmatized and criminalized individual living below the poverty line in the fringes of society. The Applicant’s financial destitution determines accessibility to legal professional representation and legal materials; it also determines when and if required court documents for the matter before the court are produced and file. When and if the necessary required transcripts can be ordered and filed. When and if the necessary required Motions and Applications are filed. When and how the Applicant travels to attend Court.

[90] Moreover, the Applicants capabilities and logistics concerning researching, preparation, presentation and legal options to give full answer for the matter before this honourable court; the Applicant’s efforts in his defence are impeded, strangled and severally constrained. In short, the Applicant’s guaranteed legal rights to give full answer and defence byway of section 7, 11 and 15 are severely affected. The accuse is after-all presumed to be innocent. In short, the Applicant’s effectiveness to do battle in an adversarial judicial has been severely blunted.

[91] Moreover, the Employment Insurance Commission has a direct bearing on the fairness, equity and efficiency of the Provincial Criminal process by linking there decision on the Applicant’s social insurance claim to the judgement conviction. The EI COMMISSION’S HAS A DIRECT EFFECT ON THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. Money is the fuel which keeps the wheel of justice turning.

[92] The Employment Insurance Commission’s actions based on there policies which intern is derived from section 30 and 100 of there Federal legislation, is used in essence to burn the social safety net from under the Applicant, before his matter has exhausted the judicial process and the criminal appeal process has given a final and binding adjudication.

[93] Not only has the Employment Insurance Commission directly affected the Applicant’s life liberty and the pursuit of happiness; but also, his capacity and logistical capability to give full answer in accordance with section 7 of the Charter to the administration of justice.

[94] The Applicant’s psychological security derive from financial security is shatter and replaced with stress and uncertainty. The Claimant also has children who are dependents, so there charter rights are also violated.

[95] On or about the 9^th of February 2010, Mr Denis Belanger, Chief Registrar of the Umpire, sent a copy of a submission from council of the EI Commission, Mathieu Joncas, requesting a Stay or an additional 60 days, until 26^th of April 2010, to file respondent’s motion record. The Commission concede the linking or dependance of the EI Commission Benefit Entitlement matter to the Claimants unresolved criminal matter in a incomplete judicial proceeding.

“Based on the documentation received, it is our understanding that the Mr. Ferron is in the process of appealing his criminal convictions. The present is to request that the appeal before the Umpire be stayed until the completion of Mr. Ferron's appeal of his criminal

convictions. The Commission asserts that both issues are related and the final outcome of Mr. Ferron's appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal will have an impact on the Commission's position in the present matter. In the event that the Umpire is not of the view that justice would be better served by a stay of procedure, the Commission respectfully request an extension of time for the filling of the respondent's motion record in the above appeal. As you are aware, the appellant's appeal raises a multitude of issues related to the constitutionality of Employment Insurance Act that require the respondent to obtain the input and approval of the contents of the respondent's record from several stakeholders within the Government of Canada. ...”

(Mathieu Joncas, Counsel for the respondent)

[96] Furthermore, the judgement conviction cannot be used as proof of guilt when the matter is still before an appellate court and the criminal appeal process has not been exhausted pursuant to S. 22.1(1) of the Evidence Act. This is unlawful and abuse of process and there Trust relationship with the State and the EI Commission in the Claimant’s respectful opinion: See Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, 2003 SCC 63 .Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23 ;

(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. “

(Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, 2003 SCC 63, para 11)

LEGAL AID:

“LEGAL AID

...I would like to take a few moments to talk about legal aid as it is of course a most important foundation stone of a humane and just society.

The basic purpose of legal aid is to serve the public by enabling each of its members to have access to the kind of legal assistance that is essential for the understanding and assertion of our individual rights, obligation and freedoms under the law.

fundamental to a civil, humane and just society.

It is a sad reality that we have not only too much poverty in this province, but as well too little understanding of the desperate straits poverty creates for so many people. The hardening of attitudes about poverty in recent years is something that all of us with

access to public opinion must struggle to counter.

Legal aid is perhaps the single most important mechanism we have to turn the dream of equal rights into a reality. Indeed, our laws and freedoms will only be as strong as the protection that they afford to the most vulnerable members of our community. In affording this protection, legal aid does make a deep and essential contribution to our social fabric and indeed to our very way of life.

I know of the strong commitment of Attorney General Bryant to ensuring that Legal Aid Ontario is adequately funded and I wish him every success in his continuing dialogue with his cabinet colleagues.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

The concept of legal aid is, of course, directly linked to the issue of access to justice generally. In this context, access to our civil justice system is being increasingly restricted to the more affluent in our society. This is reflected in what has been described as the phenomenon of “the disappearing civil trial”.

The issues related to access to justice have been addressed by two very important initiatives during the past year. Firstly, the Attorney General requested the Honourable Coulter Osborne, former Associate Chief Justice of Ontario and the legislature’s integrity commissioner to make recommendations with respect to making the civil justice system more accessible and affordable in Ontario. His report is expected in the late spring.

Secondly, an important national Civil Justice Reform Conference was held in Toronto early last month, being phase ii of the review initiated by the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice. The forum made important progress in furthering the process of uniform sharing of information and assessing the reliability of civil justice information across Canada which is, of course, of extreme importance to meaningful reform.

It often requires repeating that a fundamental pillar of our democracy is the requirement that Canadians be provided with a means by which they can resolve their disputes peacefully and in a timely manner before an independent and impartial decision maker and that this process is accessible to all Canadians both in terms of cost and complexity.

I should like also to congratulate Justice Eleanor Cronk for her important continuing role in the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice.

PROFESSIONALISM

I have been pleased to have had the opportunity of co-chairing with the Treasurer of the Law Society an advisory panel on professionalism. The main goals of the committee are to promote professionalism, civility and a spirit of community and collegiality in the legal profession.

There have now been some seven semi-annual colloquia on the legal profession which has produced a collection of high quality papers about the legal profession in its broadest sense. The law schools have been encouraged to enhance the teaching of professional ethics and much progress has been made in this regard.

There are many people, too numerous to mention, who have contributed to this initiative however I would like to thank Justices Stephen Goudge and Paul Perell in particular for their effective leadership.

CONCLUSION

There is one overwhelming reality that I have learned since my call to the bar in 1958, and it is that the challenges facing the administration of justice in Ontario have grown hugely in the subsequent years. The increasing challenges simply reflect an ever increasing complex society.

I repeat that I believe that the citizens of Ontario are very well served by the hundreds of men and women who discharge their daily responsibilities as judges with impartiality and fairness. At the same time all judges recognize that we must continue to strive to earn that confidence. Issues related to access to justice in a timely and affordable fashion will continue to demand the collective attention of the bar, government and the judiciary.

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

[97] Again Ontario Legal Aid, for the second time denied the Applicant’s application for Legal Aid’s financial support. The Superior Court of Justice, was demanding that the Applicant File and serve the necessary Transcripts.

[98] The Crown was advising the Applicant that there position was to have the appeal dismiss for failure to file and serve the necessary Transcripts.

[99] The Employment Insurance Commission position was, there will be no social insurance financial support benefit pursuant to the judgement conviction which infers misconduct. The Ontario Legal Aide position was that they do not financially support criminal appeals with a probability of no jail term.

[100] The court reporters position was that work on the transcription of the Transcript would not begin until the necessary down-payment of money was received. As a personal opinion from the perspective of an indigent individual, this is a “financial imprisonment of the Transcripts” and “financial barrier to the end of justice”! Consequently, this was holding fairness, equity and efficiency hostage. The said Transcript was not prepared with due diligence and in accordance with Rule 40.06(11), Rule 40.06(12), Rule 8.(15) and Rule 8.(16).

[101] There are Legal Aid letters informing the Applicant of his denial of Ontario Legal Aid benefits and the quashing of his subsequent Legal Aid Appeal, (given 8 days to appeal). There is a letter from Employment Insurance, informing the Applicant of his disqualification of EI Commission Benefits Entitlement, as a direct foreseeable result of the judgement conviction.

[102] There seem to be a false notion, based on a “false right” that Legal representation is readily available to all who need and request it. Asper Ontario Legal Aid policy;

“SUBJECT: Conviction and/or Sentence Appeals where a non-custodial sentence imposed

__________________________________________________________

[103] This is in accordance with Legal Aid Policy, as stated above. The Claimant falls outside the aforementioned constraints of Legal Aid Official Policy and legislation pursuant to Ontario Legal Aid reasons for denial of financial support. At least if you are incarcerated, you have a place to sleep and food to eat.

[104] The original position of the Crown was to have the criminal appeal matter before, the Superior Court of Justice, dismiss for delay. Delay which was far above and outside the control of the Applicant’s ability and control.

[105] Delay which in the Applicant’s respectful opinion was artificially manufactured and unnecessary and should be attributed to the properties caused by the enforced application of the process and the lack of empathy for an indigent, financially destitute Applicant; which was a foreseeable consequence of the judgement conviction.

[106] This did not encourage a prudent facilitation of the, Superior Court of Justice appeal, with due diligence for an indigent Accused. But instead induce a false impression of an impassable impediment to perfecting the appeal. Which created a “legal barrier to entry” for the said appeal and subsequent proving of innocence in the new trial. This in the Applicant’s opinion lead toward a contravention of the fundamental rule of justice and a violation of the accused fair trial rights.

“The inexperienced defendant, whether indigent or able to afford counsel of his own choosing, is often completely ignorant of his rights as an accused person; or, if aware of them, is so unnerved by the proceedings as to be unable to avail himself of them; is wholly unable to understand the situation in which he finds himself; and therefore is most in need of the protection of his legal rights. He finds himself standing, at the moment, alone and unarmed, under conditions totally foreign to him, the strength of his opponents not fully known, but apparently sufficient to justify the issuance of a challenge in which his life or his liberty shall be at stake. Remembering that our hypothetical defendant is innocent, and that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, can the prosecuting attorney do other than guarantee that no unfair advantage shall be taken of his opponent, by providing him at the earliest opportunity with an advocate capable of arming himself as the state is armed preparatory to the encounter? 17

In line with the positions taken by the Ouimet Report of the Canadian

Committee on Corrections, Martin states I am in complete agreement that in order to fully achieve its purpose, Legal Aid must be such as to remove, so far as it is possible to do so, just cause for bitterness on the part of an accused because of inadequate representation or none at all.'18 {...}

Finally, the cases disposed in provincial judges' courts are predominantly those of the poor. The reasons why the poor often go unrepresented have been suggested to include the following: ignorance of what services could be provided; ignorance as to the significance of a criminal record; concern that they may lose income from time taken off work, or even that they may lose their jobs; distrust, degradation, and fear often associated in their minds with welfare officers, and the quite conceivable extension of these feelings towards the lawyers associated with 'the system'; concern that a lawyer may only serve to complicate, and perhaps worsen, their position; worry that they may be asked or compelled to contribute to the cost of representation; the mere fact that the lawyer is associated with the criminal justice system, which may be perceived to be their oppressor. “

(LEGAL AID IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS, James L. Wilkins, start page 50)

[107] The very act of basing the outcome of the Employment Commission matter on an unresolved judicial matter, introduces inconsistency, non uniformity inequity and unfairness into the matter before this honourable Court. The Employment Insurance Commission Tribunal’s adjudication is based on the unresolved pending Criminal decisions.

[108] Many of the Employment Insurance Commission Tribunal’s adjudications are based on unresolved Criminal decisions.

[109] The Federal case law say you can, within the context of Employment Insurance Commission benefit entitlement. Some of which are based on misconduct which intern is base on unresolved pending criminal matters. The common element here is, that the State has the advantage in both case.

[110] When an accuse has been unjustly criminalize and his life unnecessarily destroyed. He has been devastated financially and socially, vicariously by the States policies, protocols, State Agents and unspoken political understanding VIA its agents and institutions. Thus, destroying the Relation-Ship of Trust which existed between the accuse, the State, the Employment Insurance Commission and the Administration of Justice.

[111] Furthermore, the State in vicariously breaching its equitable duty and shattering the Trust and Confidence of the said accuse in a free democratic system of governance, does an actionable wrong against the Applicant. The State in vicariously destroying its foe initially, at the beginning of the matter is in effect crippling the accuse before doing battle in an adversarial judicial system. Where is the presumption of innocence.

[112] The skillful use of time, and limitation periods are concatenated with policies to vanquish a foe, a member of the collective, at the start of the battle. The innocent defendant's defenses has been circumvented before being establish. Thus, the accused has lost before the battle has even started. The ends of justice of the Applicant has been predetermined from the offset of the battle, by the rapid erection of financial barriers along with the social, financial and legal assassination of the innocent accused.

[113] This is in effect destroying the Applicant’s effective functionality in his defense against the overwhelming power of the collective. All that is left is to choreograph an apparent fair battle for the imaginary equitable outcome as a spectacle for the public.

[114] This closes the door or impedes proof of innocence along with victim compensation, restitution, accountability and the healing of the social wounds that was to follow. Thus, there is no inoculation or preventative medicine for our rotting social flesh of our beloved moral society.

[115] When the Applicant’s life is unnecessary and vicariously destroyed by the State whom he shared a RELATIONSHIP of TRUST. The said destruction caused the accused financial decimation.

[116] Not only was the Applicant denied Legal Aid Benefit to appeal is questionable Criminal conviction. But also, the Employment Insurance Benefit Entitlement social security was denied the Applicant for questionable reasons based on and linked to an undetermined Criminal matter. Thereby, burning the financial social security safety net for income interruption, further accelerating the Applicant’s demise to financial obscurity and dependency below the poverty line.

[117] This actionable wrong destroys the Applicant’s confidence in the Relationship of Trust an individual shares with the State, the EI Commission and the Administration of Justice. Thus, consuming the fragile bonds which binds our society as a form of social cancer. This intern damages the health and well-being of the collective while simultaneously destroying the Applicant and his offsprings.

[118] If enough individual members of the collective are destroyed, the collective will also be destroyed. The twin faits of the individual and the collective along with there health and well being are forever linked!

[119] Furthermore, the unjust enforced criminalization of the Applicant and the unnecessary destruction of his life. Has obliterated him financially and socially; this is acheved vicariously by the States policies, protocols, agents and unspoken political understanding VIA its agents and institutions. Thus, destroying the Relationship of Trust which existed between the accuse, the State and the Judicial system.

[120] Moreover, the State in vicariously breaching its equitable duty and shattering the Trust, Confidence and Equity in a free and democratic system of governance. The State is in essence, vicariously destroying its foe initially, at the beginning of the matter. This said actionable wrong, in affect cripples the Applicant in doing battle in an adversarial judicial system.

[121] The skillful use of time, and limitation periods are concatenated with policies of respective Crown institutions; to vanquish a foe, a member of the collective, at the start of the battle. The Applicant has lost before the battle has even started.

[122] The ends of justice of the accuse has been predetermined from the offset of the battle, by the rapid erection of financial barriers along with the social and legal assassination of the accused. In effect destroying the an individual’s effective functionality in the collective to defend himself.

[123] This closes the door or impedes proof of innocence along with victim compensation, restitution, accountability and the healing of the social wound that was to follow. Is the fair trial rights to defend ones innocence and ones self a “false right” or is it guaranteed?

VICARIOUS WAR:

[124] The following problem or permutation exist;

the Applicant’s life was unnecessary destroyed by the State whom he shared a relationship of TRUST. The said destruction caused the Applicant’s financial decimation. Furthermore, Ontario Legal Aide Benefits was denied, and the Employment Insurance Benefit Entitlement social security was denied the Applicant for unjust reasons. Thereby, burning the financial social security safety net for income interruption, further accelerated the Affiant’s demise to financial obscurity and dependency.

[125] A quantum of money is what retains a legal professional, binding a competent advocate to do battle on behalf of her client in an adversarial judicial system. The client is armed and prudently protected! Money is the fuel which the judicial engine consumes. Money is the energy which drive the process and turn the wheels of justice to a resolution of a matters before it.

[126] To destroy one financially and socially, and then demand that one do battle in an adversarial judicial system which requires a corpus amount of money to be successful or even be effectively engaged in battle; is to destroy ones foe at the start of the battle. His faith is sealed, the battle is guaranteed or assured by the State’s vicarious actions in it’s favour; its outcome was predetermined by the destruction of essential financial resources.

• the Applicant is criminally and socially stigmatized;

• the Applicant is financially decimated and under bankruptcy protection;

• the Applicant his living below the poverty line and has no home for his children to visit him;

• the Applicant is under great stress because of his suffering and his children suffering due to unnecessary criminalization and social stigmatization;

• the Applicant has no access to a defence fund or other Monies to seek fair and equitable access to justice;

• the Applicant has no access to legal professional representation or a prudent professional advocates;

• there is a financial and social impedance the Applicant must overcome to have access to restorative justice? Even the Applicant’s efforts to return his life to normalcy is impeded?

• there is the creation and supporting of a financial impediment which the Applicant is forced to scale, “walk the plank” so to speak to obtain access to ethical justice and restitution;

• the Applicant’s opponent is the most powerful adversary in the Country;

• the Applicant’s opponent is the riches adversary in the Country;

• the Applicant’s opponent is the most protected and has the most and best resources to do battle in a adversarial judicial system;

• the Applicant’s opponent is an institution or institutions whose resources and life expectancy are infinite and not bounded like the common man or reasonable persons, it is not even bounded by time;

• there is no legislative solution to the stated problem or the stated permutation to provide judicial equity or fairness, uniformity and equality in the judicial system;

• the Applicant’s opponent has unmatched and unbridled credibility.

[127] The essence of the mater before this honourable court, which is more important than the Applicant’s matter on the face, is;

does Canadians who has a relationship of TRUST with the State and fit the profile of the Applicant have fair and equitable access to justice. Moreover, do they have access to restorative justice and restitution in a reasonable amount of time before damage is done? HAS THE APPLICANT BEEN GIVEN UNIMPEDED ACCESS TO EQUITABLE JUSTICE?

[128] The fundamental issue before this honourable court is;

when an accuse person who once enjoyed the benefits of a relationship of TRUST with the State and the justice system, has been criminalize, stigmatize and defamed by slanderous libel thereby causing financial decimation and the denial of rights and freedoms; erecting before the accuse a colossal financial impediment or impedance to access justice. Does the Applicant have access to restorative justice and restitution? Can justice be accessed by accused Canadian’s fitting his profile?

[129] Given that the Applicant is a father of four children who need nurturing, guidance, education, and prudent preparation for there future, and there are laws and covenants protecting the family and children; is a denial or impedance to access justice legal and in accordance to the Charter? More importantly, can the Applicant’s access to ethical justice and judicial equity in a reasonable time before his assured destruction or irreparable damage to his beloved children’s life, liberty, security and there pursuit of happiness is done? Has humanity been assassinated in the judicial system?

[130] It is falsely assumed that the Applicant after his financial devastation is capable of mounting an effective defence in the defence of his innocence;

it is falsely assumed that the Applicant after his financial devastation does not have the responsibilities and obligations of a reasonable person, a typically normal Canadian who is trying to make his way in life;

[131] Deloitte, can give an accurate assessment of the Applicant’s present financial position and capabilities. She is the bankruptcy trustee for Wayne Ferron (file No.: 2255001), the Applicant;

[132] Ontario Works-Region of Peel, can give an accurate assessment of the Applicant’s present financial position and capabilities. She is the Claimant’s Worker (case no.: 569, member ID 104 278 577) and the respective institution which employ’s her has prudently collected hordes of financial and social information;

everyday the Applicant’s oldest child ask why is this matter taking so long in court. It is taking it tole on her and the Affiant is presently addressing the problem;

the Applicant has a lot of patience, but it is unreasonable to expect his children to have my long suffering patience;

he can live on very cheap food, but it is unreasonable to expect his children to sacrifice there quality of life;

he can be a minimalist in consumer products and necessities of life, i.e. clothing, but it is unreasonable to expect this of his children;

he can sacrifice, delay or even forgo on completing his education, but it is unreasonable to expect less in education from his children within the context of there full potential and capabilities;

the Applicant can be constraint in travel and be a virtual prisoner of his present social, financial and legal position, but it is unreasonable to stunt and constrain his children’s social and educational development;

“I am a father, I love my children, and I cannot be expected to be less than a beloved mother and abandoned my obligations owed to my offsprings!”

(Wayne FERRON, Applicant)

[133] HAS THE APPLICANT BEEN GIVEN UNIMPEDED ACCESS TO EQUITABLE JUSTICE?

BILL OF RIGHTS:

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

Preamble

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

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

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

(Bill of Rights Preamble, Preamble)

[134] The Province of Quebec Preamble R.S.Q., chapter C-12 Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms asserts;

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

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

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

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

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

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

[135] Para 1 and 2 establishes and affirms the right and freedom of a human being in a general way. Para 3 is saying that with out a common respect for human dignity, it is not possible for society as we know it, our collective, to exist in its present form. Para 4 concede that there is a link between the Rights and Freedom of the person and the effective functionality of the collective.

[136] There is a relationship between the health and well being of the collective and the Rights and freedom of the individual. Rights and Freedom are generally though of as being a means of protection and a check and balance against the insurmountable power of the collective.

[137] But, here its saying that if you harm the individual you are harming the collective and this intern has a dramatic effect on the health and well being of the totality of our society. This is why I am in love with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, Preamble. It make the extra step, and it is beautiful for this reason.

The Applicant’s life and his families life has already been unnecessarily destroyed, the life and quality of his beloved four baby girl’s life has been irreparable damaged! Moreover, there is a strong impedance against the Applicant’s efforts to rebuild and reconstruct his life, to the ends of returning to society as a nurturing father and a productive tax paying Canadian. In short, NORMALCY! THE AFFIANT’S PROSPECT FOR RETURNING BACK TO SCHOOL IN SEPTEMBER HAS BEEN SHATTERED BY THE CONTINUAL DELAY IN THE APPEAL AND HIS SUBSEQUENT PROFF OF INNOCENTS.

[138] In any case, it is a denial of equitable justice and an impedance to the ends of justice. Hence it is a violation of the inherent rights guaranteed by the Charter for the group of individual composing the said articulated set. This is contrary to and acting in opposition of the evolution of a better society.

[139] The Applicant cannot even attend school this year for retraining because of the excessive delay in the respective matters at the Commission and the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

“I am only one of many screaming for help in the silent cold night. Refusing to go ‘silently into the night.’”

(Wayne FERRON, APPLICANT)

[140] If the panel must rule against the Applicant, because of the manufactured financial barrier placed before accused, then so be it. Yes, manufactured because his life was unnecessarily destroyed and this destruction was help by the unjust actions of the various relevant Crown institutions. Because of the manufactured delay in the matter before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Applicant was not be able to re-attend school coming September. A wrench has been thrown into his efforts to rebuild and reconstruct his life. He need to fine a home to live, he need to be a mother to his children again. he needs to nurture his children and provide for there future again. This is what Mr Chesteron was talking about when he wrote;

“ ... strictly, they do not see the prisoner in the dock; all they see is the usual man in the usual place. They don’t see the awful court of judgement; they only see their own workshop.”

(Chesterton 1915, 50)

[141] The Crown is well equipped with its lawyers, well finance and well prepared. In short, the State is well armed to do battle in an adversarial judicial system. The Applicant watched many unarmed accused who came to do battle with the State at hearings. The fight was weighted heavily to one side. Most of them did not even understand what the issue was about, much-less what to argue in there defence. There is a paper which describe this situation perfectly;

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

[142] The Applicant is financially destitute, bankrupt and living way below the poverty line. Criminal Procedure obligations places on the Applicant a Goliath financial burden and an impassable impediment to perfect the Appeal and give full answer to respective courts within the meaning of section 7 of the charter. The Court should understand that because of the Applicants indigency, the Applicant will have to sacrifice food, things for his children and himself just to try to fulfill his court obligations.

[143] It is contrary to Humanity, Human decency, and ones Political and Civil rights to burn the social safety net and aggravate the Criminal Procedure, its process and then expect the said accused to bear a hefty financial burden without any assistance.

[144] Does the Applicant has unimpeded access to fair and equitable justice?

Does the Applicant has unimpeded access to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Does the Applicant has unimpeded access to his Human Rights?

Does the Applicant has unimpeded access to The international Covenant of Civil and Political Rights?

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Date:..

_________________________

Wayne Ferron

Email: ferronwayne@gmail.com

TO: The Clerk of the Court--Registrar

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

Criminal Law Branch

6th floor

fax: 416 326 4015

AND TO

The Attorney General of Ontario

Constitutional Law Branch

4^th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

fax: 416 326 4015

AND TO:

The Attorney General of Canada

Constitutional Law Branch

Suite 3400, Exchange Tower

Box 36, First Canadian Place

Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6

fax: 416 973 3004

Information Nos.: C51190

court of appeal for ontario

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

- and -

WAYNE FERRON Applicant

CITATION - VOLUME 0

APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION

FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

0.) ACCESS TO JUSTICE

WORK CITED

1) (Gillese J.A., January 22, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190))

2) (Laskin J.A., May 14, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190))

3) (David Watt J.A., August 27, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))

4) (Gillese J.A., January 22, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190))

5) (MacPherson J.A., December 13, 2010, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190), This typed version is not official)

6) (Laskin J.A., May 14, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190))

7) (Martin Report, Report of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure, and Resolution Discussions, page 92-93)

8) (Matin Report, REORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHARGE SCREENING DISCLOSURE, AND RESOLUTION DISCUSSIONS, page 19)

9) ( Court of Appeal for Ontario, R. v. Rowbotham, page 57, para 2)

10) (J. Santino, Employment Insurance Commission, Insurance agent

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

12) (Report to Chief Justice, http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/scj/en/reports/ctr/index.htm)

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

14) (J. Santino, Employment Insurance Commission, Insurance agent)

1) dismissed or abandoned and no further appeal is available. “

15) (Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, 2003 SCC 63, para 11)

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

17) (LEGAL AID IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS, James L. Wilkins, start page 50)

18) (Bill of Rights Preamble, Preamble)

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

court of appeal for ontario

R -versus- Wayne Ferron

Court file no.: C51190

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT

Osgoode Hall

130 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5

DOC-X

VOLUME 0

APPLICATION RECORD

FOR APPLICATION

FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

0.) ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Wayne Ferron

Email: ferronwayne@gmail.com

There are no posts in this folder...

PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

Author Information

DOC-X VOLUME 0: APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION 0.) ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Folder Contents

Free Membership

Who's online

Who's new