DOC-X VOLUME VII: APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION 7.) CROWN’S OBLIGATION TO MAKE TIMELY DISCLOSURE DEFENCE

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 VII

APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION

FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

7.) CROWN’S OBLIGATION TO MAKE TIMELY DISCLOSURE DEFENCE

7.) CROWN’S OBLIGATION TO MAKE TIMELY DISCLOSURE DEFENCE:

[1058] Typed version of handwritten endorsement

R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190)

Gillese J.A.

January 22, 2010

Mr. Ferron appears today asking for various heads of relief including orders that the 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))

[1059] Typed version of handwritten endorsement

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))

CROWN’S OBLIGATION TO MAKE TIMELY DISCLOSURE DEFENCE

PREMISE (MOTION IS FOR):

1. the Applicant is requesting one hour for the Motion;

2. an order to conduct a hearing to determine the outstanding issue of Application Transcripts/Appearance Transcripts and the disclosing of the said real evidence so that the accuse my know his case and is empowered to give full answer;

3. an order to conduct a hearing to determine the outstanding issue of untimely Disclosure/ nonDisclosure and the disclosing of the said real evidence so that the accuse my know his case and is empowered to give full answer in brining is constitutional question forward;

4. an order to grant remedy byway of 24(1) for denial of natural justice at ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL. Or the said remedy can be concatenated with the other constitutional issues in the AMENDED NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION application;

5. an order allowing for a Court appointed Case Management Officer to oversee and manage the Appeal to insure a fair and equitable Appeal;

TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS

(1) January 18, 2008, Trial Transcript;

(2) April 28, 2008, Application Transcript;

(3) May 9, 2008, Trial Transcript;

(4) June 17, 2008 Application Transcript;

(5) July 23, 2008, Trial Transcript;

(6) September 5, 2008, Trial Transcript;

(7) September 26, 2008, REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT;

(8) September 26, 2008 (REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT), the complete Trial Transcript without sections removed;

APPEARANCE HEARING TRANSCRIPTS

(9) March 28, 2007, Hearing Transcript;

(10) March 30, 2007, Hearing Transcript;

(11) April 13, 2007, Hearing Transcript;

(12) May 11, 2007, Hearing Transcript;

(13) June 01, 2007, Hearing Transcript;

(14) June 29, 2007, Hearing Transcript;

(15) July 13, 2007, Hearing Transcript;

(16) August 03, 2007, Hearing Transcript;

APPLICATION TRANSCRIPTS and APPEARANCE TRANSCRIPTS FOR APPEAL HEARINGS

(1) November 03, 2008, Appeal Transcript;

(2) November 10, 2008, Appeal Transcript;

(3) December 01, 2008, Appeal Transcript;

(4) December 15, 2008, Appeal Transcript;

(5) January 12, 2009, Application Transcript;

(6) April 06, 2009, Application Transcript;

(7) May 04, 2009, Application Transcript;

(8) June 01, 2009, Application Transcript;

(9) June 29, 2009, Application Transcript;

(10) July 20, 2009, Application Transcript;

(11) July 27, 2009, Application Transcript;

(12) September 14, 2009, Appeal Transcript;

APPEAL HEARING TRANSCRIPTS

(1) October 05, 2009, Appeal Hearing Transcript;

(2) October 14, 2009, Appealing Hearing Transcript;

FURTHER DISCLOSURE:

[1060] The Applicant is asking for further disclosure denied him and owed to him by the Crown in the Ontario Court of Justice, mainly;

a) Officer X name, badge number and notes for GO 07-70285?

b) Officer Y name, badge number and notes for GO 07-70285?

c) The name, badge number and notes of the informant for Information 07-02500 for GO 07-70285. In short the said informant’s hidden articulated personal knowledge of reasonable belief concerning the matter before the Ontario Appeal Court?

d) The name, badge number and notes of the informant for Information 07-02559 for GO 07-70285. In short the said informant’s hidden articulated personal knowledge of reasonable belief concerning the matter before the Ontario Appeal Court?

e) I require articulated reason of what action or none action is to be taken, concerning the mislabeled exhibit and the missing exhibit?

f) The Applicant require the dialogueue or communication between Officer Monk(#1399) and the YRP dispatch.

g) The Applicant is respectfully asking for the documentation which was prepared after the warrantless search or Warrantless Search Report of the Applicant’s vehicle. If there is no documentation, then written articulated reason why there is none?

h) A certified Transcription of EXHIBIT 2 for Information 07-02559 for GO 07-70285.

6. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

CROWN’S SELF IMPOSED TIMELINE FOR COMPLETING TASK:

[1061] The following should be looked at within the context of the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK, the ATTORNEY GENERAL’S DIRECTIVE, the MARTIN REPORT, the RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and the PRACTICE DIRECTIONS AT COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. The Crown or any of it’s counsel should know are aught to have known about the aforementioned documents and be familiar with their contents. These material construct the standard by which the Bar should conduct its or the Crown’s business. They provide the direction and guiding light for legal professionals in their chosen profession while practicing law. Keep in mind that unrealistic expectation and impatience on the part of the Applicant is being inferred.

[1062] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice Laskin;

“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., Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))

[1063] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice MacPherson;

“The Crown is directed to prepare the appeal book which will include the evidence, rulings and submissions, plus the trial and summary conviction appeal decisions.

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, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190)

[1064] RECALL:

that the NOTICE of APPEAL (C 51190) was filed on the 2^nd of November 2009; the AMENDED NOTICE of APPEAL (C 51190) was filed on the 18^th of January 2010; the Notice of Motion for Direction(M 38387) was filed on the 27^thof January 2010; the Motion for FURTHER DISCLOSURE(M38706) was filed on the 14^th of May 2010.

[1065] In response to Riun Shandler, Inmate Appeals Administrator’s letter on 6^th of November 2009; Crown’s warning to move for the dismissal of the Applicant’s Appeal, if the Transcript of evidence are not ordered in a timely fashion. The Applicant filed the AMENDED NOTICE of APPEAL (C 51190) with an Affidavit of Applicant (Wayne Ferron) under TAB 27 and 29 copies of TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM for desired TRANSCRIPTS for Appeal , ordered but not paid for on the 30^th of December 2009.

[1066] The Applicant in his disappointment of the lack of effort and progress in perfecting the Appeal, along with his personal discovery of the Attorney General’s Directions allowing him to request past outstanding disclosure; filed a Motion for FURTHER DISCLOSURE(M38706) on the 14^th May 2010.

[1067] The date 14^th of May 2010, is a very important mark in the unfolding of events in the matter before the court;

[1068] 14^th of May 2010, is about five months after the filing of the NOTICE of APPEAL (C 51190) and over three months after the Honourable Justice Gillese J.A endorsement of the Notice of Motion for Direction(M 38387). Maybe not being a Lawyer is inducing the Applicant to be impatient and have unrealistic expectations, but the Applicant was also trying to resurrect his life and repair some of the damage cause by the prosecution of the matter before the court. The failure to complete this matter which is a major obstacle to restitution has destroyed the Applicant’s efforts in reeducation and retraining for the workforce. Furthermore, his efforts to gain self-sufficiency to be in a position for reconciliation with his other three children has been severely impeded;

“Good morning Superior Court Justice, Clerks of the Court, Public Prosecutor and the Public. It is a beautiful, glorious day. The sun is high in the sky and I am happy to be here today. Regardless of the fact that I should be in school today writing quizzes and attending classes.

My long excruciating wait is over.

I am another step closer to being a father again;

to my beloved children.

Breathing life into my life once more.

Defibrillating the flat line of life.

Rejuvenating my pulse;

for the purpose of normal living.

I am happy to be here. thank you for granting me the privilege to be here and the honour of presenting my matter before this honourable Court. I am prepared to argue. I am honoured to proceed.

I have studied hard , to show myself approved unto this honoured Court. However, please forgive me , if I was not prudent or thorough in my preparation. I am indigent, bankrupt and financially destitute; so I am very constraint in what I can do. Forgive me, if I am wanting or lacking those things which are necessary in delivering my arguments.”

(Wayne Ferron, Applicant, 2009, opening address to the Appellate Court)

[1069] 14^th of May 2010, is the date Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) advised the Applicant, moreover affirmed to the Appellant that she was given care and control of the Applicant’s Appeal (C 51190);

[1070] 14^th of May 2010, is the returnable date of the Applicant’s Motion for FURTHER DISCLOSURE(M38706);

[1071] 14^th of May 2010, is the date Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) emailed the Applicant her initial outline for her investigation and progress for R. v. Ferron (C51190);

[1072] no order date indicated; 14^th of May 2010 is the date Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) may possible have ordered January 18, 2008 Trial Transcript for 07-02559;

[1073] no order date indicated; 14^th of May 2010 is the date Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) may possible have ordered May 9, 2008 Trial Transcript for 07-02559;

[1074] no order date indicated, 14^th of May 2010 is the date Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) may have possible ordered June 17, 2008 Application Transcript for 07-02559;

[1075] 14^th of May 2010, is the date Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) ordered July 23, 2008 Trial Transcript for 07-02559;

[1076] 14^th of May 2010, is the date Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) ordered April 28, 2008 Application Transcript for 07-02559;

[1077] 14^th of May 2010, is the date Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) ordered September 5, 2008 Trial Transcript for 07-02559, (Summation);

[1078] 14^th of May 2010, is the date Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) ordered September 26, 2008 Trial Transcript for 07-02559, (Reasons for Judgement):

[1079] Pursuant to Ms. Joanne K. Stewart;

“Re: Your Appeal (Regina v. Wayne FERRON, C51190)

As you know, I have been assigned to represent the Crown in your matter at the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Please forward all future correspondence and documents directly to my attention.”

(Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, May 14, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 1)

[1080] 28^th of October 2010, is the date Crown’s Counsel ordered October 5, 2009 Trial Transcript for 07-02559, (Appeal Hearing); there is certification in blue ink on November 24/10.

[1081] 27^th of October 2010, is the date Crown’s Counsel ordered October 14, 2009 Trial Transcript for 07-02559, (Appeal Hearing); the said Transcript was completed on November 24/10; there is and undated certification signature in blue ink; the Transcript approved for release date is missing; therefore this said Transcript certification is in question. All of this information is on page 56.

[1082] Pursuant to Ms. Joanne K. Stewart;

“1. Regarding Transcripts

To confirm, transcripts for the following dates have been ordered from the

following court reporters:

COURT DATE COURT REPORTER

January 18, 2008 Fiona Downer

April 28, 2008 Joanne Knapp

May 9, 2008 Wendy Campbell

June 17, 2008 Patti Verni

July 23, 2008 Michelle Waters

September 5, 2008 Tracey Beatty

September 26, 2008 Lisa Ruggiero

These dates represent your trial dates before Justice Kenkel of the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket, Ontario. The request to these court reporters specified that we are seeking all evidence, all submissions, all rulings and all decisions on those dates (i.e. everything relating to your matter on those dates should be transcribed in full, and if not, I will request any missing portions). Next week I plan to follow-up on these orders to

ascertain an estimated time of arrival. I note that each of these transcripts have been produced before so, unless there are significant portions relating to your matter that were not transcribed in the previous copy, I expect that these transcripts should be available soon.”

(Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, May 14, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 1)

[1083] Pursuant to Ms. Joanne K. Stewart;

“With respect to your set date appearances, you have listed the following dates at page 10 of your Motion for Direction with Constitutional Question:

1. March 28, 2007 (you listed this date twice at page 10 of your Motion for

Direction with Constitutional Question)

2. March 30, 2007 (you listed this date twice at page 10 of your Motion for

Direction with Constitutional Question)

{..}

As there is no record on the Information of you appearing on March 28, 2007 and June 9, 2007, my position is that there were no appearances on those dates and I will not be ordering transcript for those dates. I am still considering my position on the remaining set dates listed above.

Typically at set date appearances an accused attends court before a Justice of the Peace and, with a Crown present, there are discussions about retaining counsel, obtaining disclosure, and setting a date for trial. I appreciate that it is your position that these appearances are important for the purposes of advancing your grounds of appeal and constitutional question(s). In the coming weeks I intend to continue to review all of the material that you have provided to date in order to understand precisely what issues you are raising that relate to the above topics and to get a sense of what you expect the transcripts of these appearances to reveal. Once I have done that, I will provide you a written summary of my understanding and/or ask you for clarification. Once I have a handle on what your position is, I will investigate the matter with counsel from the Crown’s office in Newmarket to get their account. Once I have completed all of the above, I will make a decision about what my position will be with respect to ordering these transcripts and will advise you of the same in writing.”

(Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, May 14, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 3-4)

TAKE NOTICE: March 28, 2007, APPEARANCE TRANSCRIPTS, R. V. FERRON (07-02500) was disclosed to the Crown under TAB 27, in APPLICANT’S DISCLOSURE FOR INMATE APPEAL (07-02559), On 21^st of July 2009, in the Crown’s Office at Newmarket for the purpose of fulfilling the Honourable Justice Bryant’s ordered, which states;

[1084] On March 28, 2007, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02500), court proceedings was before His Worship Justice of the Peace B. Norton;

Ms. K. Wright for Crow’s ;

Ms. Halajian for the Accused;

Recording No. 202;

Court Reporter, D. Dobson.

“THE COURT: And I understand this matter, the Ferron matter is in custody upstairs. upstairs. Is that correct?

MS. WRIGHT: In custody but a consent release.

THE COURT: Pardon?

MS. WRIGHT: It’s gonna be a consent release. Is that correct?

MS. HALAJIAN: Yes, that’s correct.

THE COURT: Who, this one?

MS. WRIGHT: Yes.

MS. HALAJIAN: (Inaudible).

THE COURT: And we’re dealing by video?

MS. HALAJIAN: Yes. It’ll be an own recognizance.

THE COURT: Well, why - I’m just curious.

MS. HALAJIAN: When you hear the allegations it’ll be explained, Your Worship. They’re concerned about - they don’t have enough officers to bring Mr. Ferron down.

THE COURT: I see.

MS. HALAJIAN: There isn’t...

THE COURT: Can I see - can I see the information for Mr. Ferron?

MS. HALAJIAN: There isn’t any issue now I believe but there certainly was an issue at the time of his arrest. And I - and the officers are just being abundantly cautious.

THE COURT: This - with the Ferron matter it’s a - oh, I see, because they (sic) resist arrest. Is that it?

MS. HALAJIAN: Yes.

{...}

MS. WRIGHT: This is a Crown onus situation where the Crown’s content to release Mr. Ferron on his own recognizance in the in the amount of $1, 000. Terms and conditions are simply to include that he reside at a - at an address approved of by this Court. That he - and that he not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.

MS. HALAJIAN: If I could just have a moment?

THE COURT: And I think the condition as approved by this Court, I think it should - possibly should just notify us of an address. I don’t know how this Court...

MS. WRIGHT: Yes.

THE COURT: ...approve of an address or?

MS. WRIGHT: Sure. Sure.

THE COURT: But to notify the Court of a current address...

MS. WRIGHT: Sure.

THE COURT: ...approximately 48 hours prior to change of address.

MS. WRIGHT: Yes. And my friend’s indicating that the -

the weapons prohibition is - is something that the Crown who reviewed this is not requiring and I will take her at her word for that and then the Crown won’t be requesting that.

THE COURT: So all we’re looking for is to appear in court? Is there a...

MS. HALAJIAN: Effectively Miss Barnier was in agreement that the release should be as similar as possible to a promise to appear...

THE COURT: All right.

MS. HALAJIAN: ...from a - from the station.

THE COURT: What about the not consume alcohol?

MS. HALAJIAN: No - that - she wasn’t concerned about that.

THE COURT: Any comments from the Crown?

MS. WRIGHT: No.

THE COURT: All right. Well, is there a criminal record?

MS. WRIGHT: No. Does Your Worship, want to know his allegations?

THE COURT: Are they essentially laid out on the face of the information?

MS. WRIGHT: I think so.

THE COURT: Very well. Any comments?

MS. HALAJIAN: No, thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Ferron, this is a Crown onus matter. Crown has chosen not to show cause why you should be held in custody. She is showing cause to the extent the conditions be applied to your release. Therefore, this court is prepared to release you upon entering into surety, without deposit, with conditions. Those conditions are you’re to notify - who’s the officer-in-charge?

MS. WRIGHT: Broughton. It’s B-R-O-U-G-H-T-O-N, badge number 1-0-79.

{...}

THE COURT: Thank you. Is the - is there a health issue here?

MS. HALAJIAN: He is - Your Worship,

he was taken into custody last night. He has not yet been even in the cells uncuffed. He hasn’t hadn’t anything to drink or eat.

THE COURT: And does he require medical attention?

MS. HALAJIAN: He is going - he - what -

the reason why we want to deal with him as quickly as possible is that he needs to go and do a urinalysis given the nature of the charges that he’s disputing. But I’m not concerned about any health issues.

THE COURT: Very well.

MS. HALAJIAN: He’ll be attending a walk- in clinic to get a requisition for that upon leaving the courthouse

THE COURT: Pardon?

MS. HALAJIAN: In order to get the urinalysis, he’ll be going to a walk-in clinic to get the requisition but beyond asking for that, there aren’t any health issues that we’re concerned about.

THE COURT: Very well.

MS. HALAJIAN: I think it...

THE COURT: Any comments from the Crown?

MS. WRIGHT: No.

THE COURT: Very well.

MS. HALAJIAN: I think it’s exhaustion. He’s been awake since o’clock yesterday morning.

THE COURT: Do you understand these conditions, sir?

MR. FERRON: Yes.

{...}

MS. HALAJIAN: We’re asking for this Friday please in 200 court. I understand the case is going to be assessed for a reasonable prospect of conviction.

THE COURT: The matter’s adjourned to March 30th, that’s this Friday, courtroom 200. What time is that?”

(March 28, 2007, APPEARANCE TRANSCRIPTS, R. V. FERRON (07-02500), page 2-9)

[1085] Pursuant to Applicant;

“I respectfully request the Crown’s assessment of GO 07-70285/07-02500, to determined probability of reasonable prospect of conviction.”

“2.01 COMPETENCE

Definition

2.01 (l) In this rule

“competent lawyer” means a lawyer who has and applies relevant skills, attributes, and values in a manner appropriate to each matter undertaken on behalf of a client including

(a) knowing general legal principles and procedures and the substantive law and procedure for the areas of law in which the lawyer practises,

← [Amended - June 2007]

(b) investigating facts, identifying issues, ascertaining client objectives, considering possible options, and developing and advising the client on appropriate courses of action,

{...}

(e) performing all functions conscientiously, diligently, and in a timely and cost effective manner,

(f) applying intellectual capacity, judgement, and deliberation to all functions,

(g) complying in letter and in spirit with Rules of Professional Conduct,...”

(RUL 2, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, page 6)

“4.01 THE LAWYER AS ADVOCATE

Advocacy

4.01 (l) When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client resolutely and honourably within the limits of the law while treating the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy, and respect.

{...}

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

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

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

(RULE 4, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, page 52-54)

[1086] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice Bryant;

“July 20 2009

Mr. Westgate for the Crown

Mr. Ferron in person

Mr. Ferron to attend Crown’s office @ 9:30 A:M to bring with him all Transcripts that he has in his possession in order that he Crown may order copies for the Appeal for the Court and the Crown. Mr Ferron to attend the Court Office for a copy of informations, endorsements and orders that he needs for this Appeal. Mr. Westgate will give Mr. Ferron a copy of exhibit 6B.)

(J Bryant, July 20, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559), unofficial)

[1087] The Crown has included a copy of the said order on page 113 of APPEAL BOOK(C51190):

“...where the complainant or potential complaint is vulnerable, the lawyer

must take care not to take unfair or improper advantage of the circumstances. Where the complainant or potential complainant is unrepresented, the lawyer should be governed by the rules about unrepresented persons and make it clear that the lawyer is acting exclusively in the interests of the accused or potential accused and, accordingly, the lawyer's comments may be partisan.

When communicating with an unrepresented complainant or potential complainant, it is prudent to have a witness present.”

(Rule 4, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, Commentary, page 54)

[1088] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice MacPherson;

“The Crown is directed to prepare the appeal book which will include the evidence, rulings and submissions, plus the trial and summary conviction appeal decisions.

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, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190)

[1089]

“ABUSE OF PROCESS.

I. Pursuant to this common law doctrine, a court of competent jurisdiction has inherent power to prevent the abuse of its process by staying proceedings.

This power is to be exercised in favour of the accused where compelling the accused to stand trial would violate those fundamental principles of justice which underlie the community's sense of fair play and decency

and to prevent the abuse of a court's process through oppressive and vexatious proceedings (R. v. Jewitt (1985), 47 C.R. (3d) 193 (S.c.c.)). It is limited to the clearest of cases.

An additional protection against an abuse of process is found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7).

2. The onus of establishing that an abuse of process has occurred is on the respondent who must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the Crown has acted in an oppressive or vexatious manner or that the prosecution is offensive to the principles of fundamental justice and fair play (R. v. D. (T.c.) (1987), 38 c.c.c. (:Id) 434 (Ont. C.A.)). 94”

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

[1090] Pursuant to Ms. Joanne K. Stewart;

“As you may recall, my initial concern with these transcripts from the Summary Conviction Appeal Court was whether there would even be recordings made of these appearances from which transcripts could be produced. On making initial inquiries, I have been advised by the Superior Court of Justice that, as a general rule in Newmarket, recordings would be made of all appearances at the Summary Conviction Appeal level.

I also note that it is somewhat unusual for an appellant to have as many

appearances as you did at the Summary Conviction Appeal court.

I appreciate that it is your position that these appearances are important for the purposes of advancing your grounds of appeal and constitutional question(s).

In the coming weeks I intend to continue to review all of the material that you have provided to date in order to understand precisely what issues you are raising and to get a sense of what you expect the transcripts of these appearances to reveal. Once I have done that, I will provide you a

written summary of my understanding and/or ask you for clarification. Once I have a handle on what your position is,

I will investigate the matter with Crown Counsel in Newmarket who had carriage of and/or who attended at these appearances in order to get their accounts.

Once I have completed all of the above, I will make a decision about

what my position will be with respect to ordering these transcripts and will advise you of the same in writing.

2. Disclosure Issues

You have raised several disclosure issues in your materials. ‘While I think I

understand some of them, I do not, at this time, understand all of them. I intend to continue to review all of the material you have provided to date

in order to understand precisely what disclosure you are requesting and how these disclosure issues were raised and addressed in the courts below. I will investigate these issues with trial Crown who

had carriage of your case.

I am aiming to write a summary of my understanding of your

requests and of what occurred in the courts below by May 25, 2010. Once written, I will send this summary to you for your review and comment so that I can be sure that I fully understand what you are trying to request and address. This information will also inform my decisions about what additional transcripts, if any, will be ordered.

As a result, I expect to make a decision about the transcripts by June 7, 2010.

3. Preparation of the Application Record

As you know, I have been tasked with preparing the Application Record for your application for leave to appeal from the summary conviction appeal decision.

I have already received the original papers from the lower courts and am in the process of reviewing them (this includes the exhibits at trial).

The Record will also include the transcript of proceedings once they are completed.

My current target date for completing the Application Record is June 14, 2010.

This date will be subject to change if I determine that some or all of the additional transcripts that you have requested are necessary.

If I determine that additional transcripts are necessary, the completion of the Record will then depend on how long it will take the Court Reporters to prepare those additional transcripts. “

(Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, May 14, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 4-5)

[1091]

“RE: Regina v. Wayne Ferron, C51190

Enclosed please find copies of the following court transcripts:

-January 18, 2008;

-April 28, 2008;

-May 9, 2008;

-June 17, 2008;

-July 23, 2008;

-September 5, 2008; and

-September 26, 2008.

These dates represent your trial dates before Justice J. F. Kenkel of the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket, Ontario, and are the entirety of the transcripts that we have ordered and received to date. Please note that certified copies of these transcripts will be included in your Appeal Book which the Crown is preparing on your behalf.

After court on Friday 27, 2010, concerned that you reported to the Court that you had not received the cheque you sent in relation to what you termed a “Freedom of Information Act request,” I returned to the office and sought to confirm that the cheque had been properly returned to you. My last email to you about this cheque, in which I indicated that the cheque would be returned to you, was dated June 14, 2010. This was the day before my accident. Due to an oversight in the Aftermath of my accident, the cheque was not in fact returned to you as I had intended. Therefore, also enclosed please find that cheque. My apologies for the delay in returning it to you and for indicating to the Court that it had been returned to you already. My understanding that it had been returned was obviously incorrect.

Please note that in accordance with Justice Watt’s endorsement dated August 27, 2010, your matter has now been placed in the self-represented stream at the Court of Appeal. I contacted the Court coordinator about when your next court date will be. I understand from the coordinator that the September sitting are full and that your matter will be listed to be spoken to on October 18, 2010.

{...}

I will be in contact with you in writing no later than September 22, 2010 to provide you with my positions on the remaining transcripts and disclosure issues. I trust that this will give appearance, in particular whether the materials I am prepared to obtained will be sufficient to argue your application for leave to appeal.”

(Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, August 31, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190))

[1092] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice MacPherson;

“The Crown is directed to prepare the appeal book which will include the evidence, rulings and submissions, plus the trial and summary conviction appeal decisions.

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, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190)

TAKE NOTICE: The Applicant received the Crown’s response from Ms. Joanne K. Stewart on the 15^th of October 2010; this is zero business day before it is to be spoken to in the Inmate Appeal Court at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

Information Nos.: C51190

court of appeal for ontario

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

- and -

WAYNE FERRON Applicant

VOLUME VII

APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION

FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

______________________________

RESPONSE

CROWN’S RESPONSE REGARDING

TRANSCRIPTS AND DISCLOSURE

________________________________

CROWN’S 22 PAGE RESPONSE/POSITION:

[1093] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice MacPherson;

“Re: Your Appeal (Regina v. Wayne FERRON, C51190)

The following is the Crown’s response to your motion regarding transcripts and disclosure. Please note that this is the completed summary that was earlier referred to in Court on August 27, 2010 as being 14 pages in draft form.”

(Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, October 15, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 1)

[1094] Pursuant to Ms. Joanne K. Stewart;

“On January 27, 2010, you brought an application asking for the Crown to produce the Application Record/Appeal Book for you. Specifically, you asked for the Crown to obtain and pay for every transcript for every appearance you ever made at both levels of Court below in this matter. You also asked for several items of disclosure. Justice Gillese ordered the Crown to obtain the required transcripts in this matter and prepare the

Application Record for your application for leave to appeal this summary conviction appeal decision. Justice Gillese asked that the Crown provide a written response summarizing your grounds of appeal and the Crown’s position in relation to your requests for additional transcripts and disclosure.

I note that the Application Record/Appeal Book can only be completed once the transcript issues are fully resolved.

{...}

If you and the Crown are unable to reach an agreement about disclosure issues and transcript issues that you have raised, a date will need to be set in Inmate/In-person Appeals Court (for self-represented individuals) to argue these issues before the Court of Appeal.

If we are in agreement on all of these issues, the Crown will then be able to finalize the Application Record/Appeal Book, serve you with a copy of that Record, and file the Record with the Court. Once that is done, you will be able to proceed with your application for leave to appeal. “

(Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, October 15, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 2)

[1095] Pursuant to Honourable Justice MacPherson;

“The Crown is directed to prepare the appeal book which will include the evidence, rulings and submissions, plus the trial and summary conviction appeal decisions.

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, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190)

[1096] Pursuant to Ms. Joanne K. Stewart;

“(vii) May 4, 2009

Your matter was brought forward on May 4, 2009. Your materials indicate that this was an application for direction. You indicate that your motion was not heard but that the Crown was ordered to obtain a copy of Exhibit 6b (the booking videotape), to pay for the hearing transcripts, and to obtain and disclose the York Regional Police audio transmission. Your materials do not specify whether this audio transmission refers to what was already filed (mistakenly) as exhibit 2 or whether it was the audio file you now request in relation to Constable Monk. The motion and appeal were adjourned to the original next date of June 1, 2009. Your materials do not specify how this appearance relates to your grounds of appeal.

(viii) June 1, 2009 (and June 29, 2009)

On June 1, 2009, your application was adjourned to June 29, 2009 to be argued. Your materials indicate that this was a continuation of your application for direction but that your motion was not heard. You further indicate that the Crown was ordered to obtain a copy of Exhibit 6b (the booking videotape), to order and pay for the hearing transcripts, and to obtain and disclose the York Regional Police audio transmission.

Your materials do not indicate whether the audio transmission refers to what was already filed (mistakenly) as exhibit 2 or whether this is the audio file you now request in relation to Constable Monk. Your materials do not specify how this appearance relates to your grounds of appeal.

It appears that this matter was not spoken to, as planned, on June 29, 2009. However, the original papers suggest that you filed an “Application to Admit [Fresh] Evidence” on that date. Your materials, however, indicate that there was an appearance on this date but that it was adjourned to the same date (i.e. June 29, 2009). I assume that this was noted in your materials is in error. As there was no appearance on this date, there will be no transcript for this date. I note that, in any event, you do not appear to be requesting a transcript for this date.”

(Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, October 15, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 10)

[1097] On 4^th of May 2009, the Honourable Justice Bryant, adjourned the Applicant’s NOTICE OF INTENSION FOR AN INMATE APPEAL; MOTION FOR DIRECTION FOR PERFECTING INMATE APPEAL, to the 1^st of June 2009 at 2:15 p:m, the assigned Appeal Hearing date.

[1098] Pursuant to Honourable Justice Bryant;

“May 04 2009 CROWN: Westgate

Mr. Ferron in person

Crown will attempt to assist Mr. Ferron obtain a copy of a video tape and a cd....”

(Justice Bryant, May 04, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559))

[1099] Pursuant to Honourable Justice Boswell;

“July 27 2009

Mr. P. Tait for the Crown

Appellant in person

{...}

2. It appears that trial Ex 2 - the CD of 911 call - is actually a CD of the dispatch call. The Ex 2 will remain available to the appeal judge. In addition, I order the Appellant to deliver to the Crown a copy of the recorded 911 call that is identical to the one played during trial.

The Crown will confirm if it is content with the recording.

The Crown will ensure that playable audio equipment is available to the court at the hearing of the appeal.

{...}

In the result, the Application is dismissed, save as my order concerning the 911 CD, set out at para 3 above.”

(J. Boswell, July 27, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559))

[1101] On 1^st of June 2009, the presiding Justice directed the Crown to obtain and pay for the remaining Transcript. Note: It is extremely difficult to read the endorsement; Your Worship, adjourned the Applicant’s NOTICE OF INTENSION FOR AN INMATE APPEAL; MOTION FOR DIRECTION FOR PERFECTING INMATE APPEAL, to the 29^th of June 2009 at 2:15 p:m.

[1102] On 29^th of June 2009, The Applicant filed an APPLICATION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE FOR INMATE APPEAL.

[1103] On 29^th of June 2009, The presiding Justice adjourned the Applicant’s NOTICE OF INTENSION FOR AN INMATE APPEAL; MOTION FOR DIRECTION FOR PERFECTING INMATE APPEAL, to the 27^th of July 2009 at 9:30 a:m.

“Jun 29 2009

Motion adjourned to July 27/09@9:30 a:m.

To Accommodate the following:

-obtaining and providing to A. a Transcript of the trial proceedings on 28 April, 2008;

-copying of Ex.6B for A (same to be release to the Crown for that purpose);

-obtaining and copying of a communication tape requested by the A.”

(Justice, July 29, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559), unofficial)

[1104] On 20th of July 2009, The Honourable Justice Bryant ordered the Applicant to attend the Crown’s Office.

“July 20 2009

Mr. Westgate for the Crown

Mr. Ferron in person

Mr. Ferron to attend Crown’s office @ 9:30 A:M to bring with him all Transcripts that he has in his possession in order that he Crown may order copies for the Appeal for the Court and the Crown. Mr Ferron to attend the Court Office for a copy of informations, endorsements and orders that he needs for this Appeal. Mr. Westgate will give Mr. Ferron a copy of exhibit 6B.)

(J Bryant, July 20, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559))

TAKE NOTICE: This is one reason which the Appearance Transcripts are need, so that avoidable adversarial contentions on facts of events can be avoided by consulting the real evidence of the occurrences in the process. Efficiency can be invoked, while wasted time and misdirected efforts can be recycled to extract the truth of the matter before this honourable court. The process is suppose to guarantee a fair trial, an equitable trial and a non abusive trial to individual members of the collective, the process is constraint by human decency and integrity. Thus, the process effects all Canadians and is in the interest of the general public; herein lies its importance to society at large. The process is much more important than an individual Trial. Hence, the importance of the APPEARANCE TRANSCRIPTS (all the appearance transcripts), which give an account of the process the Applicant was subjected to, by way of real evidence. The aforementioned should be looked at within the context of the Applicant’s given allegations and constitutional question. There is no doubt in the Applicants mind that there has been Charter breaches before the laying of the information and after the laying of the information. Just because he may not be able to articulate the said Charter violations to a standard which the Bench requires does not negate the existence or occurrence of these said offences against the Supreme Law of Canada. The question now is, will the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL champion the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM or will it pull a brick from it’s foundation?

[1105]

“E. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

With respect to the mislabelled exhibit, I gather that only the 911 recording was intended to be entered as an exhibit at trial. This recording was played in court but that the dispatch call was inadvertently entered as that exhibit. It is my understanding that you wish for both pieces of evidence to be before the Court on your appeal. I propose to include in the Application Record/Appeal Book that the Crown is producing on your behalf for your Application for Leave to Appeal, (i) copies of the CD containing the 911 recording and the dispatch recording and (ii) the transcripts of these audio files that you had produced for the Summary Conviction Appeal. This will be marked in the index as Exhibit 2 but will clearly indicate for the Court that Exhibit 2 contains the 911 recording, which was intended to be entered into evidence at trial, and the dispatch recording, which appears to have been inadvertently entered into evidence at trial.

Crown requires your consent to release these exhibits for the Crown to review them and ensure that they are clearly noted and described in the Application Record/Appeal Book index as exhibits available for review by the Court. If you are willing to consent, please provide your consent in writing at your earliest convenience. “

(Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, October 15, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 21)

[1106] Pursuant to RESPONSE TO CROWN’S RESPONSE REGARDING TRANSCRIPTS AND DISCLOSURE(M38706);

“I cannot reasonably agree with Madam Joanne Stuart (Crown’s) deduction and remedy for missing and mislabeled EXHIBITS. Doing what is being propose would change the dynamic of what happened at the Trial. Entering the transcripts of the two audio disk into the APPEAL BOOK in this manner would introduce errors in the history of what happened at the trial. This would pervert the events surrounding the exhibits.

What happened to the untimely disappearance of the crowns copy of the EXHIBITS. EXHIBITS which the Crown disclosed to the defence, and the defence filed as EXHIBITS? The Appeals were not filed late, there needs to be an accounting of the Crowns copy of these exhibits? The Crown is the guardian and stewart of these evidence which are the property of the public!

I was ordered by Justice Boswell to file and replace the Crown’s disclosure, which it had misplace or lost or was not able to retrieve. The Crown’s copies of evidence had vanished into thin air. The preservation evidence, securing of evidence and stewardship of evidence is the cross the Crown must bear. Yet I, an unrepresented none legal professional was expected to bear the Crown’s cross, and provide copies of evidence which a legal professional in a high public office was not able to do or incapable of doing.

I propose that the EXHIBITS be left the way they are, to maintain authenticity of the dynamic of the Trial and it process. I will give permission for the Crown to produce a Transcription of the Audio CD (exhibit 2) in the EXIBIT list. The said Transcription is to be entered into the Appeal Book under a different heading as Transcription of exhibit 2, the 911 Audio CD. I would also like an additional copy of the said transcription disclosed to me, for my personal preparation of my Appeal.

To complete the Application Record/Appeal Book, I note that the Court of Appeal has among the exhibits from your trial, a VHS tape (presumably the booking video) and a CD (presumably the recording of the 911 call and the dispatches). Unlike paper exhibits, the Court of Appeal for Ontario requires that we obtain a special order to review this evidence. It would make the process easier and faster if you consent to this request. The Crown requires your consent to release these exhibits for the Crown to review them and ensure that they are clearly noted and described in the Application Record/Appeal Book index as exhibits available for review by the Court. If you are willing to consent, please provide your consent in writing at your earliest convenience.

I will consent on the condition that I am given written articulated reason and justification of what happened to the Crown’s copy of these exhibits. What happened to the York Regional Police copy of these requested exhibits. Recall that these exhibits were copies of the Crown’s evidence disclosed to me. The Crown has been working on this matter for over nine months, why has it not been able to find and secure its copies of the exhibits. None of the Appeals were late so there is no reason for the Crows copy and the York Regional Police copies of the exhibits not to be preserved.

I also am requesting as a separate and independent request, to review the Mc Neil Package on-site in the Crown Attorney Office pursuant to the Attorney Generals Practice Memorandum, at your earliest convenience.)

{...}

TO THE CROWN ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO;

1.) I REQUIRE one certified typed english Transcription hard copy of EXHIBIT 2, CD 07-70285. From ,EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL, Ontario Court of Justice - Newmarket, Before Mr Justice J. F. Kenkel, YORK REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, Trial Commencing January 18, 2008, File # 07-02559-00, REGINA VS. Wayne Ferron.

On 2nd of November 2009, the Applicant filed a NOTICE OF APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, File # C51190; applies for leave to appeal the Order of the Honourable Madam Justice S. Healey on grounds involving a question of law alone; applies for leave to appeal his conviction upon grounds involving a question of law, and if leave be granted hereby appeals against the conviction.

2.) I Wayne FERRON consent to the release of the EXHIBITS to the Crown, mainly;

exhibit 2, the 9-1-1 CD introduced into evidence on May 9, 2008;

exhibit 6b, the Video of Wayne Ferron at Police Station introduced into evidence on September 5, 2008;

The consent by the Appellant to release the said EXHIBITS to the Crown, is being given on the condition that I am given written articulated reason and justification of what happened to the Crown’s copy of these said exhibits. What happened to the York Regional Police copy of these said exhibits. Recall that the exhibits at issue were copies of the Crown’s evidence disclosed to me. The Crown has been working on this matter for over nine months, why has it not been able to find and secure its copies of the exhibits. None of the Appeals were late so there is no reason for the Crows copy and the York Regional Police copies of the exhibits at issue, not to be preserved.

3.) I also am requesting as a separate and independent request, to review the Mc Neil Package on-site in the Crown Attorney Office pursuant to the Attorney Generals Practice Memorandum, at your earliest convenience.)

Dated this Tuesday, December 14,2010

Signed ...........................................

Applicant: Wayne FERRON”

(RESPONSE TO CROWN’S RESPONSE REGARDING TRANSCRIPTS AND DISCLOSURE(M38706), page 100-106)

SUMMARY FOR TRANSCRIPTS, REAL EVIDENCE:

[1107] The Applicant sincerely hope the Panel notice that he is using Appearance Transcripts to correct the CROWN’S ERROR IN FACTS AND FALSE NOTIONS of what occurred in the process or accounting of events at the lower courts.

[1108] The appearance transcripts are essential to the TRUTH SEEKING PROCESS; after all is this not what all parties are here for, to learn the TRUTH OF THE MATTER before this honourable Court and act on it in accordance with there purpose, objectives, and duty to the public.

[1109] The Appellant is being prep for defeat or being ready for the legal slaughter house. In the Applicant’s humble option, there is no fairness in this, no honour, no integrity, and no humanity; just the Crown in their self impose belief of extracting a cancerous tumor from the collective tissue, moreover an undesirable individual extracted from the collective with the legal knife through apparent fairness.

[1110] The Applicant wonder if they notice that the collective is bleeds or is bleeding every time this answer to social problems is implemented. This is a personal mission, and not an objective of a high public office acting in the interest of the collective. A personal mission of shielding fellow comrades who operate in the fringes of their high public Office. This in essence renders the prosecution improper and a violation of the inherent duty owed to Canadians of the relevant high public Offices.

The Applicant does have responsibilities with children. Now it will become the STATES responsibility to do that which a loving father has been prevented from nurturing and loving his children. Moreover, denied from fulfilling his honoured responsibilities owed to his children.

Has the Applicant’s humanity and quality of life been unjustly stolen?

[1111] The Application Transcripts and the Appearance Transcripts are needed, so that avoidable adversarial contentions on facts can be avoided by consulting the real evidence as witness by the Courts, of the occurrences in the process. Efficiency can be invoked, while wasted time and misdirected efforts can be recycled to extract the truth of the matter before this honourable court. So the Applicant will not be forced to take one year of grueling explanation to convince the relevant parties of issues or events in questions. This is what has been forced upon the Applicant?

Is this fair?

[1112] The process is suppose to guarantee a fair trial, an equitable trial and a non abusive trial to individual members of the collective.

[1113] The process is constraint by human decency and integrity. Thus, the process effects all Canadians and is in the interest of the general public; herein lies its importance to society at large. The process is much more important than an individual Trial. Hence, the importance of the so called APPEARANCE TRANSCRIPTS (all the appearance transcripts), which give an account of the process the Applicant was subjected to, by way of real evidence. One should not forget that the Applicant is alleging unfair process and is also arguing reasonable apprehension of bias.

I need the right tools (Transcripts) to build my case?

[1114] The aforementioned should be looked at within the context of the Applicant’s given allegations and constitutional question. There is no doubt in the Applicants mind that there has been Charter breaches before the laying of the information and after the laying of the information. Just because he may not be able to articulate the said Charter violations to a standard which the Bench requires does not negate the existence or occurrence of these said offences against the collective byway of a gross affront to the Supreme Law of Canada.

[1115] The question now is, will the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL champion the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM or will it pull a brick from it’s foundation?

• DOES THE COURT TRUST IT’S OWN EVIDENCE?

• DOES THE COURT BELIEVE IN EVIDENCE DOCUMENTED BY ITSELF?

• DOES NOT THE REAL EVIDENCE, WITNESS BY THE COURT MEET THE QUALIFICATION OF TRUST WORTHY EVIDENCE?

• THE APPLICANT TRUST THE EVIDENCE AS WITNESS BY THE COURTS EVEN IF NO ONE ELSE CHOOSE not TO?

APPLICATION AND APPEARANCE TRANSCRIPTS:

[1116] Pursuant to the contents of this document (APPLICATION FOR APPEARANCE TRANSCRIPTS AND FURTHER DISCLOSURE AND DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE(C51190), RESPONSE TO CROWN’S RESPONSE REGARDING TRANSCRIPTS AND DISCLOSURE and the MARTIN REPORT; all the Transcripts requested is needed to understand the dynamics and events surrounding the process and prosecution of the matter before this Honourable Court. For example, the Applicant was only able to unravel the confusion about the informations after prudent study of the Appearance transcripts. Another example would be the continually informing and explaining to Justices and Crown’s counsel of the errors in the Transcripts; this was only possible byway of Transcripts. Another example is the Crown’s insistence that I was not present in the lower courts on March 28, 2007 and as a result there is no hearing transcript for that date. The fact is, the Applicant has disclosed a copy of the said Transcript on more than one occasion to the Crown in the lower courts.

[1117] The reality is;

the York Regional Police Services has branded the Applicant as a violent crack cocaine addict;

Justice Kenkel has branded the Applicant has having absolutely no credibility;

Justice Healey has affirmed Justice Kenkel branding of the Applicant has having no credibility;

assistant Crown Attorney, Mr. P. Tait and Mr. Costain has declare the Applicant to be a liar and the Applicant’s allegations and arguments to be fantasies;

[1118] Hence, the only logical method absent of defeat, available to the Applicant to scale this colossal wall and bring his arguments forward is real evidence in the form of all the Court Transcripts. Why is every one afraid of the Truth. Change is painful, but it is for the betterment of our society. This is the public interest and not personal missions of protectionism.

“Recommendation 13:

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

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

[1119] If the dynamics of the events surrounding the prosecution and process of the case cannot be understood. If the foundation of the facts are questionable and the Crown is allowed to sanitized the matter before the Court. How is it possible for the panel to understand the matter and render a fair and equitable judgement? How is it possible, when one cannot even assess the process for reasonable apprehension of bias?

[1120]

“11.3.5 Conduct of Post-Charge Proceedings

The right and duty of the Attorney General, through Crown counsel, to supervise criminal prosecutions once charges are laid is a "fundamental part" of our criminal justice system.³² Generally, just as peace officers are independent from political control when laying charges, Crown counsel are independent from the police in the conduct of prosecutions.³³ Crown counsel's independence extends, for instance, to assessing the strength of the case,³⁴ electing the mode of trial,35 providing disclosure to the accused,³⁶ deciding which witnesses to rely on (including decisions about immunity from prosecution)³⁷ and deciding if the public interest warrants continuing or staying a prosecution.³⁸

The authority of the Attorney General to screen charges at this stage is clear. Indeed, as described in Part V, Chapter 15, "The Decision to Prosecute", Crown counsel "are expected to review the [original] decision to prosecute in light of emerging developments affecting the quality of the evidence and the public interest, and to be satisfied at each stage, on the basis of the available material, that there continues to be a reasonable prospect of conviction". Crown counsel are also obliged to pursue early and fair resolution of all cases.³⁹

Once charges are laid, full responsibility for the proceedings shifts to the Attorney General. On request, police have the responsibility to carry out further investigations that counsel believes are necessary to present the case fairly and effectively in court. As well, the Attorney General has the authority to control the proceedings after charges are laid, including conditions of bail, staying or withdrawing charges and representations on sentence. These decisions should, wherever reasonably possible, be made in consultation with the investigators although consultation (much less agreement) is not required as a matter of law.”

(18.3.5, The Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook )

[1121]

“Given that the criminal justice funnel is broadest where cases first enter, it follows that sound policy at the earliest stages in this fundamentally important area of social regulation has the greatest potential to enhance the reputation of the administration of justice among the broadest group of participants. Conversely, any shortcomings in the initial stages of the process will adversely affect more participants than anywhere else in the system. Seen in this way, the early stages of the criminal process have heightened importance. Therefore, added to the concerns that these early stages work well because the criminal law is fundamentally important, yet blunt, costly, and potentially oppressive, is the concern that the early stages work well because they have the broadest impact on those involved. In short, while the administration of justice must be sound at every stage, nowhere is soundness more important than at the outset.”

(MARTIN REPORT, REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHARGE SCREENING, DISCLOSURE, AND RESOLUTION DISCUSSIONS,) page 13)

[1122] Pursuant to the Martin Report;

“First and foremost is the concern that the dispositions meted out early in the criminal process be fundamentally fair, and represent an acceptable reconciliation of the interests of the accused and the community. High standards of fairness must be scrupulously preserved and vigorously perpetuated.”

(MARTIN REPORT, REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHARGE SCREENING, DISCLOSURE, AND RESOLUTION DISCUSSIONS, page 17)

[1123] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice Kenkel;

“I’ve considered all of the evidence at the trial as a whole and make the following findings in that context.”

(Honourable Justice Kenkel, September 26, 2008, REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT, page 9, line 24-26)

[1124] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice Kenkel;

“The Officers were witnesses who were acting in a professional capacity at the time of their observations. They made detailed observations and were able to recall those details with the aid of contemporaneous notes. The officers involved in the arrest did appear to confuse who was on what side of Mr. Ferron, but beyond that the evidence of all the officers was consistent on the central points. I accept the evidence of the police witnesses ”

(Honourable Justice Kenkel, September 26, 2008, REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT, page 10-11, line 25-32, line 1-2)

[1125] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice Kenkel;

“Concerning Mr. Ferron’s lack of recollection of the central events and his flawed perception and irrational behavior at other times I find he is neither a credible nor a reliable witness. His evidence is illogical and contradicted by external credible evidence. Considering all of the evidence at trial as a whole I find I must reject Mr. Ferron’s testimony completely. ”

(Honourable Justice Kenkel, September 26, 2008, REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT, page 12-13, line 31-32, line 1-7)

[1126] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice Kenkel;

“The officers involved in the arrest had reasonable grounds to make that arrest and their uncontradicted evidence shows that Mr. Ferron chose to resist that arrest forcefully. Their evidence shows that Mr. ferron chose to resist that arrest forcefully. Their evidence as to Mr. Ferron’s resistance is consistent with his odd refusal to speak or even acknowledge the officers from the time he was stopped and his attempt to walk away when he first exited the van. ... Considering all o f the evidence as a whole I find that the Crown has proved this count beyond a reasonable doubt .”

(Honourable Justice Kenkel, September 26, 2008, REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT, page 14-15, line 27-30, line 1-24)

[1127] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice Healey;

“[2] The evidence took four days of trial time to complete. The appellant was self-represented during the trial. Justice Kenkel found that the independent civilian witness to Mr. Ferron's erratic driving on the night of his arrest was a credible witness who gave his evidence in a forthright manner and who was responsive in cross-examination. He found the evidence of the officers who attended at the scene on the night Mr. Ferron was arrested to be consistent on all of the central points. In contrast Justice Kenkel noted that Mr. Ferron could give no credible explanation for the erratic driving observed by the witness, had no memory of his physical struggle with the police, and gave no credible explanation for his lack of memory. Justice Kenkel found that the appellant's lack of memory on the central points detracted substantially from the credibility and reliability of all of his evidence. With respect to the other events connected to the night of his arrest, Justice Kenkel found the appellant's recollection to be "very faulty". Justice Kenkel's assessment of the Appellant's testimony was summed up in the following paragraph of his Reasons for Judgment: "Concerning Mr. Ferron's lack of recollection of the central events and his flawed perception and irrational behaviour at other times I find he is neither a credible nor a reliable witness. His evidence is illogical and contradicted by external credible evidence. Considering all of the evidence at trial as a whole I find I must reject Mr. Ferron's testimony completely."

(Honourable Justice Healey, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE , RULING for Information No.: 07-02559)

[1128] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice Healey;

“THE COURT: It’s pretty clear to me, from reading all of the evidence, all of it, sir, of the officers that were involve in investigating you that night, that they felt, at the scene, that you were impaired because you were responding, or not responding more to the point, in a very bizarre way. That’s uncontroverted evidence before Justice Kenkel. You were not able to explain the behaviours that you were exhibiting that night.”

(Honourable Justice Healey, October 14, 2009 Application Transcript for 07-02559, page 35, line 20-30)

TAKE NOTICE: If this is the case, why has the crown not included one single officer’s notes or transcription of their notes in the appeal book(c51190).

[1129] Pursuant to Mr. Tait;

“MR. TAIT: I would agree with Mr. Ferron, Your Honour, that any issue to do with an appeal on the merits ought to be dealt with first prior to any constitutional question, which I don’t believe really arouse in any detail on the - on the record below. I know Justice Kenkel, the Trier in Ontario Court, dealt with a Section 9 Charter Application and invited submissions from the Crown on that issue because I guess he felt it had somewhat of a - an air or reality or threshold relevancy to it. So that was dealt with, but Mr. Ferron, on Appeal, has filed an omnibus Charter Application, which really wasn’t the subject of argument below. So I would respectfully suggest, Your Honour, that that be sort of for now and we deal with his issues with respect to the conviction appeal first.”

(Mr. Tait for the Crown, October 5, 2009 Application Transcript for 07-02559, page 4, line 10-30)

[1130] Pursuant to Mr. Costain;

“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

The trial judge was aware of a possible breach of the Appellant’s section 9 right against arbitrary detention, and addressed it in his reasons. He found no evidence to support such a claim: The Appellant was lawfully stopped based on information received by the police from the civilian, the subsequent investigation was brief, and the circumstances of his detention beyond that point appeared self-imposed (and in any event did not affect the allegations before the court)

There is also no basis to allege racial profiling. The driving observed by the civilian witness, and his 9-1-1 call, occurred prior to his viewing the driver. The Police conducted a traffic stop based on that call. There was no evidence of racism playing any role whatsoever.

The Appellant now alleges breaches of his Charter rights under section 7, 15, 8, 10, and 11. While the arrest, conducted in a proper fashion considering the Appellant’s own actions. While the charge upon which the Appellant was arrested was later withdrawn, that does not affect the initial validity of the arrested. There was ample grounds for the arrest, and considering the Appellant’s resistance, the force used to effect the arrest was reasonable.

Further, there was no search or seizure that led to any substantive evidence at trial. While there was a warrantless search of the van incident to arrest, no evidence was found to or tendered as a result of that search. No breath or bodily samples were taken from the Appellant.

The Appellant was informed of his rights to counsel, and did not exercise them-and in any event, no substantive evidence collected after the rights to counsel was relevant to the charges before the court. There were no police actions in breach of section 11 of the Charter.

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)

[1131] Pursuant to Mr. Tait;

“MR. TAIT: Yes. Having not raised them at trial, and I think my colleague addresses that in the factum, that there is no air of reality to the constitutional issues raised on appeal. Ordinarily, when an accused is represented at trial if a Charter issue is not raised on the evidence available the appellant would be precluded from raising it on appeal. In this case, being self represented at trial and self-represented on appeal, the court, in it’s discretion I think, may consider the constitutional issues raised by Mr. Ferron in his capacity as an unrepresented litigant. He may not be aware of that procedure, but in my respectful submission if you do consider, though, on the evidence - on the record of evidence from the court below, there is evidence, as Mr. Costain points out in our factum, no air of reality to any of the issues raised by Mr. Ferron. By way of example, he raises section 8, unreasonable search and seizure, and there wasn’t anything following the events which give rise to the offences which would engage section 8. No evidence was seized by the police in this investigation. So Ordinarily, Your Honour, if not raised at trial there is always the rare exception, I suppose, that an appellate court may entertain a constitutional application, say if competency of counsel is being raised and wasn’t. That might be one example. But in this case, since he’s unrepresented, you may, at your discretion, consider it, but in my respectful submission there is no merit to that - to those applications.”

(Mr. Tait for the Crown, October 14, 2009 Application Transcript for 07-02559, page 49-50, line 10-30)

[1132] The Transcripts are needed, so that avoidable adversarial contentions on facts of events can be avoided by consulting the real evidence of the occurrences in the process. Efficiency can be invoked, while wasted time and misdirected efforts can be recycled to extract the truth of the matter before this honourable court. The process is suppose to guarantee a fair trial, an equitable trial and a non abusive trial to individual members of the collective; the process is constraint by human decency and integrity. Thus, the process effects all Canadians and is in the interest of the general public; herein lies its importance of the matter to society at large. The process is much more important than an individual Trial. Hence, the importance of the so called APPEARANCE TRANSCRIPTS (all the appearance transcripts), which give an account of the process the Applicant was subjected to, by way of real evidence. The aforementioned should be looked at within the context of the Applicant’s given allegations and constitutional question. There is no doubt in the Applicants mind that there has been Charter breaches before the laying of the information and after the laying of the information. Just because he may not be able to articulate the said Charter violations to a standard which the Bench requires does not negate the existence or occurrence of these said offences against the Supreme Law of Canada. The question now is, will the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL champion the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM or will it pull a brick from it’s foundation?

TRANSCRIPTS FOR APPEAL (C51190):

[1133] On the 11^th of January 2009, The Applicant received a package from the Crown’s Office, possible from Matthew Asma(Crown Counsel) who has carriage and control of matter(C51190), containing an APPEAL BOOK (C51190) and 9 TRANSCRIPTS;

[1135] concerning the January 18, 2008 Trial Transcript for 07-02559; there is no order date indicated, there is no certification in blue ink which infers that the said Transcript has not been paid for and accordingly are in direct violation of the ontario Regulations 587/91, Court of Justice Act, January 1, 1990. I refuse to be party to steeling out of the pockets of Court Reporters by not rewarding them for their hard work, which is a legal requirement for certified real evidence Transcriptions. This said Transcript is exactly the same as the copy sent by Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) to the Applicant and has the exact same legal violations and legal pitfalls.

[1136] concerning the May 9, 2008 Trial Transcript for 07-02559; there is no order date indicated, there is certification in blue ink on May 17/10 which begs the question; is the Order date for the said Transcript being purposely hidden? This said Transcript is exactly the same as the copy sent by Ms. Joanne K. Stuart.

[1137] concerning the June 17, 2008 Application Transcript for 07-02559; there is no order date indicated, there is certification in blue ink on May 17/10 which begs the question; is the Order date for the said Transcript being purposely hidden? This said Transcript is exactly the same as the copy sent by Ms. Joanne K. Stuart.

[1138] 14^th of May 2010, is the date Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) ordered July 23, 2008 Trial Transcript for 07-02559; there is certification in blue ink on May 26/10. This said Transcript is exactly the same as the copy sent by Ms. Joanne K. Stuart.

[1139] 14^th of May 2010, is the date Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) ordered April 28, 2008 Application Transcript for 07-02559; there is certification in blue ink on May 15/10. This said Transcript is exactly the same as the copy sent by Ms. Joanne K. Stuart.

[1140] 14^th of May 2010, is the date Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) ordered September 5, 2008 Trial Transcript for 07-02559, (Summation); there is certification in blue ink on May 14, 2009. This said Transcript is exactly the same as the copy sent by Ms. Joanne K. Stuart.

TAKE NOTICE: Possible error, the certification date precedes the order date; this is not logically possible.

[1141] 14^th of May 2010, is the date Ms. Joanne K. Stuart (Crown Counsel) ordered September 26, 2008 Trial Transcript for 07-02559, (Reasons for Judgement); there is certification in blue ink on May 17/10. This said Transcript is exactly the same as the copy sent by Ms. Joanne K. Stuart.

[1142] 28^th of October 2010, is the date Crown’s Counsel ordered October 5, 2009 Trial Transcript for 07-02559, (Appeal Hearing); there is certification in blue ink on November 24/10.

[1143] 27^th of October 2010, is the date Crown’s Counsel ordered October 14, 2009 Trial Transcript for 07-02559, (Appeal Hearing); the said Transcript was completed on November 24/10; there is and undated certification signature in blue ink; the Transcript approved for release date is missing; therefore this said Transcript certification is in question. All of this information is on page 56.

[1144] According to the Crown at the Newmarket court house concerning the Affiant Appeal as of right to the SUPERIOR COURT;

“Absent a timely filing of the necessary transcripts the Crown position on June 1, 2009 will be that the appeal be dismissed.”

(Doug Kasko, Letter from the Assistant Crown Attorney)

[1445] On the 6^th of November 2009, Riun Shandler, Inmate Appeals Administrator, sent a response to the Applicant concerning his Appeal to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO (C 51190);

“Your non-inmate in person Notice of Appeal was filed at the Court of Ap-

peal on November 2nd, 2009. I hope this letter will assist you in the prepa-

ration of your appeal.

As an appellant representing yourself in this appeal, you are required to

perfect your appeal in accordance with the Criminal Appeal Rules.

You are required to file full transcripts (except those items

set out in Rule 8(8)). You are required to file an Appeal Book

and an Appellant’s factum. Three copies of each must be filed at the Court of Appeal and one Copy must be served on our office before this appeal will be listed for hearing.

At the time your Notice of Appeal was filed, you were required to file a court reporter's certificate or, alternatively, proof that the transcripts have been ordered. If you have not done that, please do so as soon as possible and provide our office with a copy.

If transcripts are not ordered in a timely fashion, the Crown may seek to have this appeal dismissed.

If for any reason you wish to abandon this appeal, please fill out a Notice of Abandonment, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. Please sign it in the presence of your probation officer or your lawyer and mail it to the Court of Appeal. Please ask you probation officer or lawyer to fax a copy to me immediately to close your file.”

(Riun Shandler, Letter from the Ministry of The Attorney General, Crown Law Office, Inmate Appeals Administrator)

[1146] On the 27^th of January 2010, at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO for Motion for Direction Application (M38387); the presiding justice left the Applicant with the Crown’s counsel and the Federal Crown’s counsel to discuss the matter before the court.

“...where the complainant or potential complaint is vulnerable, the lawyer

When communicating with an unrepresented complainant or potential complainant, it is prudent to have a witness present.”

(Rule 4, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, Commentary, page 54)

[1147] The Crown’s initial position was to question weather the appearances was recorded and if Transcripts could be produced for the hearings. Moreover, the crown incorrectly believed without and investigation that the hearings in question were not recorded. This was discussed in detailed Motion for Direction Application (M38387), on the 27^th of January 2010, at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[1148] On the 12^th of December 2009, the Applicant went to Newmarket Court House, and ordered all the necessary Transcripts he was requesting. But, could not pay for them.

(see Tab 2, MANDAMUS MOTION RECORD, page 1 to 29)

[1149] He made copies of all 29 “ORDER FORMS FOR TRANSCRIPTS-NEWMARKET” order forms, bundled it under tab 31 in his AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(C51190), then served and filed it on the 18^th of January 2010.

[1150] This simple action, which is documented fact which can be confirmed by the Newmarket Court Reporters renders the Crown’s initial position on availability of Transcripts on the 27^th of January 2010, to be irrelevant. Since the Applicant demonstrated in a practical way there availability.

[1151] The Crown’s initial position on the production of the Transcripts, was that it would take a long time, for the location and transcription of all the Transcripts being requested by the Applicant. Moreover, the Crown incorrectly believed without investigation, that the identification, transcription of recordings and production of Transcripts would take up to two years.

[1152] The Applicant notified the Court Reporter’s of his Motion for Direction to request the Crow pay for the production of the Transcripts because he was financially handicap by his financial destitution. For example, one of the court reporter’s response on Jan 18 & 25, 2010 byway of email;

“Dear Mr. Ferron,

I had left a message for you on January 8th regarding the amount of appeal transcripts being $607.50. I asked for confirmation of your request and I would like to again ask for your conformation.”

“ {...} I trust that you will let me know the result and I will invoice the party responsible for payment. I assure you that the transcripts are available as soon as payment can be arranged”

[1153] The other court reporters responded in a similar fashion. This can be confirmed by calling the court reporters to give evidence. This should lay to rest the length of time it would take to produce Transcripts of hearings at the Newmarket court house.

[1154] Again the simple action of ordering the relevant Transcripts, which is documented fact which can be confirmed by the Newmarket Court Reporters renders the Crown’s initial position on availability production time of about two years for Transcripts, on the 27^th of January 2010, to be irrelevant. Since the Applicant demonstrated in a practical way there availability and inferred the short time line for there production.

[1155] Motion for Direction, with Joanne Stuart for Crown Counsel:

On the 27^th of January 2010, the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, heard the Applicant’s Motion for Direction Application (M38387). The Presiding Justice ordered the Crown to pay for, file and serve all the necessary Transcripts along with the Book Of Appeal.

[1156] The Affiant also requested in his MOTION FOR DIRECTION, application, a court appointed, CASE MANAGEMENT OFFICER, to oversee and prudently manage the Appeal. The Affiant felt that this would optimize the efficiency of the Appeal process and avoid the abuses of the process he experience first hand at Newmarket Court House. Which would go a far way in insuring a fair and equitable Appeal or access to the ends of justice. For some reason this was not implemented!

[1157] Motion (M38706), with Joanne Stuart for Crown Counsel:

the NOTICE OF MOTION (M38706), returnable on the 30^th of April, 2010, was filed and served on April 9, 2010;

[1158] the Applicant MOTION FACTUM (M38706), MOTION ARGUMENTS (M38706) and MOTION RECORD (M38706), returnable on the 30^th of April, 2010, was filed and served on April 29, 2010;

[1159] The Applicant and the Crown agreed to adjourn the motion for two weeks, off the record, to give the Crown time to review the material. The Crown initially wanted an indefinite adjournment, but the Applicant reconsidered this option to not be useful and unreasonable and later settled for two weeks adjournment which was more than reasonable;

[1160] On April 29, 2010, the Applicant observed a male associate of Joanne Stuart, whom he had met earlier with Joanne Stuart, at the Crown Counsel at the Ministry of The Attorney General’s Office.

[1161] The aforementioned person, Joanne Stuart’s, male associate was filing a copy of the APPLICANT’S FACTUM, which she indicated was an extra copy from the Federal or Canadian Attorney General’s Office.

[1162] The filing of the APPLICANT’S FACTUM with attention to a single judge, to help in perfecting the Appeal. The APPLICANT’S FACTUM was longer than the approved length and not double space, so it needed the approval of a presiding judge.

[1163] The APPLICANT’S FACTUM, was served on the 17^th of March 2010 on the Federal and Provincial Crown’s Office; the said APPLICANT’S FACTUM, was refused on the corresponding date at the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL for technical reasons.

[1164] On the 14^th of May, 2010 MOTION Hearing, With Joanne Stuart for Crown Counsel:

The presiding justice did not have access to the following documents;

the Applicant’s MOTION RECORD (M38706) which was filed;

the Applicant’s MOTION FACTUM (M38706) which was filed;

the Applicant's MOTION ARGUMENTS (M38706) which was filed;

the APPLICANT’S FACTUM which the male associate of Joanne Stuart, appeared to have filed for the Crown.

[1165] The hearing was partially conducted with the Crown’s and Applicant’s copy of the materials filed for the hearing. The Applicant does not know what to say about missing filed court documents for a hearing, other than they were missing at the hearing and the presiding justice did not have privy to them for the conducting of the relevant hearing.

[1166] The motion (M38706) for C51190 was adjourned without a returnable date. In short, it was indefinitely adjourned. Which is what the Crown originally wanted, off the record in its private discussions with the Applicant.

The APPELLANT WAS, still without one single Transcript or list of transcripts to be disclosed, that the applicant on December 12, 2009 ordered; and the crown is supposed to pay for by way of a court ENDORSEMENT issued on january 27, 2010; for the crown to pay for, serve and file all necessary transcript it has chosen to be relevant.

NOTICE of APPEAL

to COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO (C 51190) 2nd November 2009

AMENDED NOTICE of APPEAL 18th of January 2010

Notice of Motion for Direction(M 38387) 27th of January 2010

Motion (M 38706) for further disclosure 14th May 2010

APPLICATION for MANDAMUS with CERTIORARI (M 38706) 27th August 2010

the Applicant received from the Crown, 7 transcripts, some

Dated 14th May 2010, 1 letter and check N0.: 336770 (IPC) 31st August 2010

the Applicant received from the Crown after 9 months, the

CROWN’S RESPONSE TO Motion for Direction(M 38387) 15th October 2010

Date to be spoken to by COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO 18th October 2010

[1167] It should be noted that Application (M 38706) was dismissed without the disclosing of outstanding disclosure owed to the Applicant and denied by the respective Crowns throughout the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 in violation of the ATTORNEY’S GENERAL’S DIRECTIVE, FEDERAL PROSECUTORS DESKBOOK, THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS article 14 fair trial rights and the Charter, and the good advice of the MARTIN REPORT.

[1168] The Crown’s counsel, Ms. Joanne Stuart reminded the presiding, COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 27^th August 2010, justice that she was in a car accident in July. This was important information concerning the progress of the perfection of the Appeal. The Applicant was not disclosed this information nor did he have privy to it, he over heard it in court while Ms. Joanne Stuart was reminding the justice of the unfortunate event. She stated some what to this effect, at a location of about half way to the back on the right hand side of the court room; “ remember my car accident”

“12.3.3 Communicating with judicial officer in contested matters in a contested cause or matter, Crown counsel shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, with a judicial officer, except:

* in open court;

* with the consent of, or in the presence of, all other parties or their counsel;

* in writing, provided a copy is given at the same time to the other parties or their counsel; or

* in ex parte matters, as permitted by law.”

(The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK, section 12.3.3)

[1169] The court was given material proof, (Motion Record for MANDAMUS with CERTIORARI (M 38706)), and advised of Ms. Joanne Stuart improper action concerning her handling of the Claimant’s freedom of Information request for official copies of the Attorney General’s Directive and the 500 page Martin Report. Ms. Joanne Stuart advised the court that she returned the Applicant’s $5.00 check; she later apologized in a letter for asserting this false information as fact in court. She use her undisclosed car accident to the Applicant as justification for what she alleges to be a mistake. It should be noted that she relay the aforementioned information from the right side at the middle of the court room instead of the usually location lawyer use to address the court, in front of the bench.

[1170] The important issue here is the Assistance Crown attorney, (Ms. Joanne Stuart), exceeded her authority by not forwarding the freedom of information request to the “HEAD” of the relevant Government institution. Then she later returned the $5.00 check, after the Claimant advised her that the freedom of information request was directed to the “ HEAD” and not to her.

[1171] Furthermore, the said Government institution advised the IPC that they never received the said information request and the Applicant was forced to file another information request with a new $5.00 fee, which in essence gave the Government Institution an additional 30 days, even though the failure to process the initial freedom of information request was no fault of the Applicant. He was even forced to pay $25.00 for his appeal to the IPC against the Crown’s Office, instead of the $10.00 fee for the first stage. Since the actionable wrong against the Applicant made it seem that the said IPC appeal was at it second stage.

[1172] This cause damage to the Applicant’s credibility and diminished his integrity, increased his cost for the IPC Appeal, caused further delay, caused unnecessary aggravation of the Applicant and impeded the disclosure of the said information which is crucial to further the Applicant’s arguments at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[1173] In my humble opinion, it was in this context which the presiding justice for the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO was lead into granting the request of the Crown, represented by Ms. Joanne Stuart, for the Motion Record for MANDAMUS with CERTIORARI (M 38706) returnable on the 27^th of August 2010.

[1174] On the 31^st of August 2010, the Applicant received 7 Transcripts from Ms. Joanne Stewart (Crown), 1 letter and 1 check N0.: 336770 (IPC). The 7 Transcripts were copies of the 7 Transcripts ordered from NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE, from the respective court reporters.

[1175] 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).

[1176] Some of the Transcripts were completed in less than one week and in the Crown’s possession for about 3 months; 1 letter explaining the mistake of asserting false information in court, concerning the returning of the $5.00 check in question; 1 check N0.: 336770, the falsely assumed returned check in question.

[1177] This was the totality of work completed by the Crown between 27^th of January 2010 and 31^st of August 2010 in completing the Crown’s duties assigned by the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, byway of the presiding justice endorsement of the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) for the perfection of the Criminal Appeal.

[1178] The Applicant had to request four times using the following written format below before he receive an answer from the Crown’s Office;

RE: REGINA V. WAYNE FERRON, C51190

I am in receipt of 7 transcripts, 1 letter and check N0.: 336770 (IPC);

I am not in receipt of the 14 page summary;

I am not in receipt of any further disclosure or progress report of outstanding disclosure;

I need confirmation, that the totality of work completed on the matter before the court since January 27, 2009 are the items listed in (a);

___________________________________________________________

Dear Madame Stuart;

I am very sorry to hear about your accident in July, and I am exceedingly happy there were no major injuries. If this is not the case, I am not oppose to a change of Crown counsel if undisclosed events in the accident are acting as an impediment to fulfill your duties.

I must proceed with due diligence in perfecting the appeal. My children are waiting on me to return to being there mother. I respectfully request confirmation that the items sent to me are the totality of work completed...

[1179] After the aforementioned four request letter was sent to the Crown, the Applicant received from the Crown after 9 months, on the 15^th of October 2010, the CROWN’S 22 page RESPONSE TO Motion for Direction(M 38387), returnable on the 27 January 2010. This was not even one full business day before the said response was to be discussed before a presiding justice. The date set to be spoken to by COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO was the 18^th October 2010 at 10:00 AM in court room 10.

According to the rules of criminal procedure, there need to be a seven business days service of court material to the other party. The Crown would never accept service of material with a returnable date of less than seven days; and the Court would never accept material which service of materials which the Crow refuse for late services.

[1180] Yet an unrepresented Applicant is expected to accept service of court-material with a returnable date of less than one business day. Court material in the form of a 22 page Crown’s Response to a motion, in which they had about nine months to complete. Furthermore, the Applicant was expected to be prepared to argue at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 18^th October 2010 at 10:00 AM in court room 10, with in the context of the said Crown’s 22 page nine months Response. Has the process been prejudice against the Applicant?

[1181] On 31^st of August 2010 the Applicant received the January 18, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information No. 07-02500 and 07-02559, as a partial fulfillment of the presiding justice endorsement, at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, for the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010.

ONTARIO REGULATION 587/91

COURT REPORTERS AND COURT MONITORS

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

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

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

[1182] The disclosed January 18, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information No. 07-02500 and 07-02559;

• was bound in red covers;

• on the front red cover, is written “ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN V. WAYNE FERRON , BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE J. F. KENKEL on January 18, 2008 at NEWMARKET Ontario, INFORMATION NO. 07-02559.” The word “COPY” is hand written in large capital letters in the far top right corner with a dark blue marker;

• on the back red cover, there is no Crown’s Office official stamp or endorsement, to confirm the date received;

• the last page within the said document which goes by the title “Form 2 Certificate of Transcript (subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act”, their is no Crown’s Office official stamp or endorsement, to confirm date received;

• on the last page of the said document which goes by the title “Form 2 Certificate of Transcript (subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act”, there is no court reporter’s endorsement signature, but their is Fiona Downer, C.C.R. typed name with a date of June 2010;

• their is no order date printed on the said certificate;

• their is no Transcript Completed date printed on the said certificate;

• the following two statement are written;

“I, Fiona Downer, C.C.R., certify that this document is a true and accurate description of the recording of R. V. Wayne Ferron, in the Ontario Court of Justice, held at Newmarket, Ontario, On January 18, 2008, taken from (a copy of) Recording No(s). 4911-101-020/2008 and 4911-101-021/008, the original of which has been certified in Form 1.”

“Photocopies of this transcript are not certified and have not been paid for unless they bear the signature of Fiona Downer, and Accordingly are in direct violation of Ontario regulation 587/91 Courts of Justice Act, January 1, 1990.”

[1183] The Applicant was never notified in writing of the completion of the January 18, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information No. 07-02500 and 07-02559. 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).

In-fact, the Applicant had to file two motions, Motion (M 38706) for further disclosure returnable on 14^th May 2010, and APPLICATION for MANDAMUS with CERTIORARI (M 38706) returnable on 27^th August 2010, before the Crown reluctantly disclosed the said Transcript in accordance with the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL’S gentle encouragement to disclose completed materials in the Crown’s possession, in the Applicant’s humble opinion.

[1184] Has the process been prejudice against the Applicant or is the reasonable Apprehension of bias?

Has the well deserved payment for service rendered been stolen from the pockets of the court reporters?

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.

[1185] On 31^st of August 2010 the Applicant received the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript for Information No. 07-02500 and 07-02559, as a partial fulfillment of the presiding justice endorsement, at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, for the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010.

[1186] The disclosed April 28, 2008 Application Transcript for Information No. 07-02500 and 07-02559;

• was bound in red covers;

• on the front red cover, is written “ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN V. WAYNE FERRON , Monday April 28, INFORMATION NO. 07-02500 and 07-02559, COURT OF APPEAL NO. C51190” The word “COPY” is hand written in large capital letters in the far top right corner with a dark blue marker;

• on the back red cover, there is no Crown’s Office official stamp or endorsement, to confirm the date received;

• on the last page of the said document which goes by the title “Form 2 Certificate of Transcript (subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act”, there is court reporter’s endorsement signature with a date of Saturday May 15, 2010, Joanne Knaap, and the said name is also typed, Joanne Knaap, Certified Court Reporter;

• their is a order date printed on the said certificate, of Friday May 14, 2010, about four months after the court endorsement for motion M38387, returnable on the 27^th of January 2010;

• their is a Transcript Completed date printed on the said certificate, of Saturday May 15, 2010;

• their is a ordering party notification of Monday May 17, 2010;

• the following two statement are written;

“I, we Joanne Knaap, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of R. V. Wayne Ferron, in the Ontario Court of Justice, held at Newmarket, Ontario, On January 18, 2008, taken from Recording No(s). 4911-105-0169 which has been certified in Form 1.”

“Photostatic copies of this transcript are not certified and have not been paid for unless they bear the original signature of Joanne Knaap. ”

• the said document was ordered on May 14, 2010;

• the said document, which is a reprint of the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript, was produced on Saturday May 15, 2010;

• the ordering Party of the said document was notified on Monday May 17, 2010;

• the said document was Transcribed, reprinted, distributed and certified by Joanne Knaap;

[1187] The Applicant was never notified in writing of the completion of the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript for Information No. 07-02500 and 07-02559. 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).

COMPLETION of TRANSCRIPTS

TRANSCRIPTS

No application to inmate appeals

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

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

Date of order and completion

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

Completion not to be suspended

Notification of completion

[1188] On 31^st of August 2010 the Applicant received the May 9, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information 07-02559, as a partial fulfillment of the presiding justice endorsement, at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, for the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010.

[1189] The disclosed May 9, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information 07-02559;

• was bound in red covers;

• on the front red cover, is written “IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN V. WAYNE FERRON , FRIDAY, MAY 9, 2008, AT NEWMARKET, COURT OF APPEAL# C51190,” The word “COPY” is hand written in large capital letters in the far top right corner with a dark blue marker;

• on the back red cover, there is no Crown’s Office official stamp or endorsement, to confirm the date received;

• the last page (page 131) within the said document which goes by the title “Form 2 Certificate of Transcript (subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act”, their is no Crown’s Office official stamp or endorsement, to confirm date received;

• on the last page of the said document which goes by the title “Form 2 Certificate of Transcript (subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act”, there is court reporter’s endorsement signature with a date of May 17, 2010, Wendy Campbell, and the said name is also typed, Wendy Campbell, Certified Court Reporter;

• their is a order date printed in the TABLE OF CONTENTS, of May 2008;

• their is a Transcript Completed date printed in the TABLE OF CONTENTS, of June 17, 2008;

• their is a Counsel notification date printed in the TABLE OF CONTENTS, of June 18, 2008;

• the following two statement are written on page 131;

“I, Wendy Campbell, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of R. V. Wayne Ferron, in the Ontario Court of Justice, held at Newmarket, Ontario, taken from Recording No. 156, 157, which has been certified in Form 1.”

• on page 130;

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT the foregoing is a true and accurate transcription of the record made by sound recording apparatus, to the best of my skill and ability.

_______________

Wendy Campbell, Certified Court Reporter

“Photostatic copies of this transcript are not certified and have not been paid for unless they bear the original signature of W. Campbell, and accordingly are in direct violation of Ontario Regulations 587/91, Court of Justice Act, January 1, 1990. ”

• the said document, has no reprint date or indication of reprint;

• the ordering Party of the said document was notified on June 18, 2008;

• the said document was Transcribed, distributed and certified by Wendy Campbell;

The Applicant was never notified in writing of the completion of the May 9, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information 07-02559. 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).

COMPLETION of TRANSCRIPTS

TRANSCRIPTS

No application to inmate appeals

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

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

Date of order and completion

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

Completion not to be suspended

Notification of completion

[1190] On 31^st of August 2010 the Applicant received the June 17, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information 07-02559, as a partial fulfillment of the presiding justice endorsement, at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, for the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010.

[1191] The disclosed June 17, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information 07-02559;

• was bound in red covers;

• on the front red cover, is written “SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN V. WAYNE FERRON , June 17, 2008, AT NEWMARKET, COURT OF APPEAL NO. C51190,” The word COPY is hand written in large capital letters in the far top right corner with a dark blue marker;

• on the back red cover, there is no Crown’s Office official stamp or endorsement, to confirm the date received;

• on the last page of the said document which goes by the title “Form 2 Certificate of Transcript (subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act”, there is a court reporter’s endorsement signature with a date of May 17, 2010, Patty Verni, and the said name is also typed, Patty Verni, Court Reporter;

• their is an order date printed in the TABLE OF CONTENTS, of June 19, 2008;

• their is a Transcript Completed date printed in the TABLE OF CONTENTS, of July 21, 2008;

• their is a ordering party notification printed in the TABLE OF CONTENTS, of July 25, 2008;

• the following two statement are written on the last page;

“I, Patty Verni, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of R. V. Wayne Ferron, in the Ontario Court of Justice, held at 50 Eagle Street, West, Newmarket, Ontario, taken from Recording No. 4911-303-219/2008, which has been certified in Form 1.”

“Photocopies of this transcript are not certified and have not been paid for unless they bear the original signature of the reporter’s name above, and accordingly are in direct violation of Ontario Regulations 587/91, Court of Justice Act, January 1, 1990. ”

• the said document, has no reprint date or indication of reprint;

• the ordering Party of the said document was notified on June 18, 2008;

• the said document was Transcribed, distributed and certified by Patty Verni;

The Applicant was never notified in writing of the completion of the June 17, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information 07-02559. 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).

COMPLETION of TRANSCRIPTS

TRANSCRIPTS

No application to inmate appeals

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

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

Date of order and completion

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

Completion not to be suspended

Notification of completion

[1192] On 31^st of August 2010 the Applicant received the July 23, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information 07-02559, as a partial fulfillment of the presiding justice endorsement, at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, for the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010.

The disclosed July 23, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information 07-02559;

• was bound in red covers;

• on the front red cover, is written “COURT OF APPEAL, R. V. WAYNE FERRON , July 23, 2008, COURT FILE NUMBER C51190,” The word “COPY” is hand written in large capital letters in the far top right corner with a dark blue marker;

• on the back red cover, there is no Crown’s Office official stamp or endorsement, to confirm the date received;

• on the last page of the said document which goes by the title “Form 2 Certificate of Transcript (subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act”, there is a court reporter’s endorsement signature with a date of May 26, 2010, Michelle Waters, and the said name is also typed, Michelle Waters, Court Reporter;

• their is an order date printed on the said certificate, of May 14, 2010, four months after the endorsement of motion M38387, returnable on the 27^th of January 2010;

• their is a Transcript Completed date printed on the said certificate, of September 2, 2008;

• their is a ordering party notification of May 26, 2010;

• the following statement is written on the last page;

“I, Michelle Waters, Authorized Court Reporter, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of R. V. Wayne Ferron, in the Ontario Court of Justice, held at Newmarket, Ontario, on July 23, 2008, taken from Recording Numbers 4911-203-0310/2008, 4911-203-0311/2008, 4911-203-0312/2008, 4911-203-0313/2008 which has been certified in Form 1.”

• the said document, has no reprint date or indication of reprint;

• the Transcript ordering date, printed on the said certificate, of Friday May 14, 2010, about four months after the court endorsement for motion M38387, returnable on the 27^th of January 2010;

• the ordering Party of the said document was notified on May 26, 2010;

• the said document was Transcribed, distributed and certified by Michelle Waters;

[1193] The Applicant was never notified in writing of the completion of the July 23, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information 07-02559. 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).

COMPLETION of TRANSCRIPTS

TRANSCRIPTS

No application to inmate appeals

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

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

Date of order and completion

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

Completion not to be suspended

Notification of completion

[1195] On 31^st of August 2010 the Applicant received the September 5, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information 07-02559, as a partial fulfillment of the presiding justice endorsement, at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, for the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010.

[1196] The disclosed September 5, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information 07-02599;

• was bound in red covers;

• on the front red cover, is written “ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN V. WAYNE FERRON, BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE KENKEL, September 5, 2008, at NEWMARKET, Court File No. C51190” The word “COPY “ is hand written in large capital letters in the far top right corner with a dark blue marker;

• on the back red cover, there is no Crown’s Office official stamp or endorsement, to confirm the date received;

• on the last page within the said document which goes by the title “Form 2 Certificate of Transcript (subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act”, their is no Crown’s Office official stamp or endorsement, to confirm date received;

• on the last page of the said document which goes by the title “Form 2 Certificate of Transcript (subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act”, there is court reporter’s endorsement signature with a date of May 14, 2009, Tracey Beatty, and the said name is also typed, Tracey Beatty, Certified Court Reporter;

• their is a order date printed in the TABLE OF CONTENTS, of May 14, 2010, about four months after the court endorsement of motion M38387, returnable on the 27^th of January 2010;

• their is a Transcript Completed date printed in the TABLE OF CONTENTS, for June 4, 2009;

• their is a ordering party notification printed in the TABLE OF CONTENTS, for May 17, 2010;

• their is a note printed in the TABLE OF CONTENTS, that Appeal Copies were Provided on May 17, 2010;

• the following two statement are written on the last page;

“I, TRACEY BEATTY, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of R. V. Wayne Ferron, in the Ontario Court of Justice, held at 50 Eagle Street West, Newmarket, Ontario, on September 5, 2008, taken from my Recording Nos. 4911-105-311/2008 and 4911-105-312/2008, which has been certified in Form 1.”

• the said document, has no reprint date or indication of reprint;

• the ordering Party of the said document was notified on May 17, 2010;

• the said document was Transcribed, distributed and certified by Tracey Beatty;

[1197] The Applicant was never notified in writing of the completion of the September 5, 2008 Trial Transcript for Information 07-02559. 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).

COMPLETION of TRANSCRIPTS

TRANSCRIPTS

No application to inmate appeals

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

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

Date of order and completion

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

Completion not to be suspended

Notification of completion

[1198] On 31^st of August 2010 the Applicant received the September 26, 2008 REASONS for JUDGMENT/SENTENCING for 07-02559, as a partial fulfillment of the presiding justice endorsement, at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, for the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010.

The disclosed September 26, 2008 REASONS for JUDGMENT/SENTENCING for 07-02559;

• was bound in red covers;

• on the front red cover, is written “COURT OF APPEAL C51190, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, R. V. Wayne FERRON, REASONS for JUDGEMENT/SENTENCING, September 26, 2008.” The word “COPY” is hand written in large capital letters in the far top right corner with a dark blue marker;

• on the back red cover, there is no Crown’s Office official stamp or endorsement, to confirm the date received;

• on the last page of the said document which goes by the title “Form 2 Certificate of Transcript (subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act”, there is a court reporter’s (Lisa Ruggiero) endorsement signature with a date of May 17, 2010 and Lisa Ruggiero, C.C.R. typed name;

• their is the Transcript original date ordered on the said certificate, for October 27, 2008;

• their is the Transcript Reasons Release date by Justice on the said certificate, November 21, 2008;

• their is the Transcript Completed date printed on the said certificate, November 24, 2008;

• their is the Transcript Copy for Court of Appeal order Date printed on the said certificate for May 14, 2010, about four months after the endorsement of motion M38387, returnable on the 27^th of January 2010;

• there is the date printed which the ordering party was notified printed on the said certificate, for May 17, 2010;

• the following two statement are written;

“I, Lisa Ruggiero, certify that this document is a true and accurate description of the recording of R. V. Wayne Ferron, in the Ontario Court of Justice, held at 50 Eagle Street West, Newmarket, Ontario, On September 26, 2008, taken from Recording No. LR4911-100-247/2008 which has been certified in Form 1.”

“THIS IS NOT A CERTIFIED COPY UNLESS SIGNED IN BLUE INK

Photocopies of this transcript are not certified and have not been paid for unless they bear the original signature of L. Ruggiero, in blue ink, and accordingly are in direct violation of Ontario regulation 587/91 Administration of Justice Act, January 1, 1990.”

[1199] The Applicant was never notified in writing of the completion of the September 26, 2008 REASONS for JUDGMENT/SENTENCING for 07-02559. 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).

COMPLETION of TRANSCRIPTS

TRANSCRIPTS

No application to inmate appeals

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

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

Date of order and completion

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

Completion not to be suspended

Notification of completion

SUMMARY FOR TRANSCRIPTS, REAL EVIDENCE:

[1200] The Applicant sincerely hope the Panel notice that he is using Appearance Transcripts to correct the CROWN’S ERRORS IN FACTS AND FALSE NOTIONS of what occurred in the process or accounting of events at the lower courts.

[1201] The appearance transcripts are essential to the TRUTH SEEKING PROCESS; after all is this not what all parties are here for, to learn the TRUTH OF THE MATTER before this honourable Court and act on it in accordance with there purpose, objectives, and duty to the public.

[1202] The Appellant is being prep for defeat or being ready for the legal slaughter house. In the Applicant’s humble option, there is no fairness in this, no honour, no integrity, and no humanity; just the Crown in their self impose belief of extracting a cancerous tumor from the collective tissue, moreover an undesirable individual extracted from the collective with the legal knife through apparent fairness.

[1203] The Applicant wonder if they notice that the collective is bleeds or is bleeding every time this answer to social problems is implemented. This is a personal mission, and not an objective of a high public office acting in the interest of the collective. A personal mission of shielding fellow comrades who operate in the fringes of their high public Office. This in essence renders the prosecution improper and a violation of the inherent duty owed to Canadians of the relevant high public Offices.

[1204] The Applicant does have responsibilities with children. Now it will become the STATES responsibility to do that which a loving father has been prevented from nurturing and loving his children. Moreover, denied from fulfilling his honoured responsibilities owed to his children.

Has the Applicant’s humanity and quality of life been unjustly stolen?

[1205] The Application Transcripts and the Appearance Transcripts are needed, so that avoidable adversarial contentions on facts can be avoided by consulting the real evidence as witness by the Courts, of the occurrences in the process. Efficiency can be invoked, while wasted time and misdirected efforts can be recycled to extract the truth of the matter before this honourable court. So the Applicant will not be forced to take one year of grueling explanation to convince the relevant parties of issues or events in questions. This is what has been forced upon the Applicant?

Is this fair?

[1206] The process is suppose to guarantee a fair trial, an equitable trial and a non abusive trial to individual members of the collective.

[1207] The process is constraint by human decency and integrity. Thus, the process effects all Canadians and is in the interest of the general public; herein lies its importance to society at large. The process is much more important than an individual Trial. Hence, the importance of the so called APPEARANCE TRANSCRIPTS (all the appearance transcripts), which give an account of the process the Applicant was subjected to, by way of real evidence. One should not forget that the Applicant is alleging unfair process and is also arguing reasonable apprehension of bias.

I need the right tools (Transcripts) to build my case?

[1208] The aforementioned should be looked at within the context of the Applicant’s given allegations and constitutional question. There is no doubt in the Applicants mind that there has been Charter breaches before the laying of the information and after the laying of the information. Just because he may not be able to articulate the said Charter violations to a standard which the Bench requires does not negate the existence or occurrence of these said offences against the collective byway of a gross affront to the Supreme Law of Canada.

[1209] The question now is, will the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL champion the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM or will it pull a brick from it’s foundation?

• DOES THE COURT TRUST IT’S OWN EVIDENCE?

• DOES THE COURT BELIEVE IN EVIDENCE DOCUMENTED BY IT?

• DOES NOT THE REAL EVIDENCE, WITNESS BY THE COURT MEET THE QUALIFICATION OF TRUST WORTHY EVIDENCE?

• THE APPLICANT TRUST THE EVIDENCE AS WITNESS BY THE COURTS EVEN IF NO ONE ELSE CHOOSE not TO?

DISCLOSURE HISTORY:

[1210] On 28^th of March 2007 at about 00:29 hundred hours. Officer Monk completed the processing of the Applicant vehicle; to be impounded.

On 28^th of March 2007 at about 00:40 hundred hours. Officer Monk(1399) completed is duties with GO 07-70285.

[1211] The Warrantless search of the suspects vehicle occurred between 00:29 and 00:40 on 28^th of March 2007. It would be prudent to note that there is no Warrantless search report documenting the occurrence. The Applicant cannot find any information in the GO 07-70285 disclosed documentation, documenting the warrantless search. All that can be said about the search is that it occurred at an unknown time, in an unknown location by Officer Monk, between 00:29 and 00:40 on 28^th of March 2007.

[1212] On the 28^th of March 2007, at 10:29 hundred hours; the Applicant was shackled and driven to the Newmarket Courthouse and placed in a cell by a swat team. By now he was able to see again. He was approached by an unknown female officer who claimed to be a counselor. She asked him if there was anything she could help with. Since he was no longer surrounded by the officers who brutalized him and being able to associate a face with a voice he decided to take a chance with this unidentified Officer. The Applicant proceeded to asked her if he could get a drug test. She replied by asking him, if he had family problems, to which he replied by stating “if the Police is interested in the truth, they would give me a drug test”. She replied “I or we cannot do that”.

[1213] On the 28^th of March 2007, immediately after the Bond Hearing, the Applicant went to YORK MEDICAL CLINIC, 11-1111 Davis Drive Newmarket, L3Y 7V1, 905-853-0404 at the 404 Plaza, had a checkup and gave a urine sample in DR. A. Dworak presence. Appellant’s urine sample was sent to CML Health Care at 6560 Kennedy Rd., Mississauga. At the said location a urine analysis (drug screening test) was performed on the sample.

[1214] On the 30^th of March 2007, the Appellant, gave the result of his drug test to Mr. Neziol (Newmarket Courthouse Duty Counsel). Who intern faxed it to all concerned parties and informed the accuse wife verbally on the said date that the drug charges would be withdrawn. Support for this is on page# 2, 3 and 4 of the Hearing transcripts on the 30^th of March 2007.

[1215] On the 3^rd of August 2007, on page# 1 of the 3^rd of August 2007, Hearing Transcript, the crown states;

“MR. BILLINGTON: If I could just look at the blue sheet, Your Honour? The accused has handed me a document, and I’ll just put it on the record, from CNL Health Care which had to do with some drug screening, I presume, and it’s dated on March 29^th and there were no drugs in his urine.” The Appellant was also advised by the Crown’s counsel to make any request for further disclosure in writing or come in person to the Crown’s Attorney's Office. Supporting documentation can be found on page 3, line 10 to 20, in the August 3, 2007 Hearing Transcript.

[1216] On the 7^th of December 2007;

• the Applicant disclosed to the Crown a copy of CML Drug test determination via the Crown’s Office.

• the Applicant also requested further disclosure from the Crown.

• there was no response from the Crown in regards to further disclosure or the defence disclosure.

[1217] On the 18^th of December 2007;

• the Applicant requested further disclosure from the Crown.

• there was no response from the Crown in regards to further disclosure.

[1218] On the 29^th of March 2007, DCst Broughton filed REQUEST FOR RECORDED VOICE COMMUNICATIONS GO# 2007-70285 for:YRP222; ASAP; investigation for the purpose of laying charges; type of incident is impaired.

[1219] On the 11^th of October 2007, the Crown sent a notification for disclose to the Applicant via Purolator Currier. Documentation which came with it stated; “RE: Charge(s): Impaired Driving, Etc. Appearance Date: January 18, 2008, Courtroom:103. Please be advised our office has received further disclosure for this matter, which is available for you at our office for pick up.” The disclosure was 911 voice dialog for GO 07-70285 in CD format.

• The aforementioned disclosure notes was requested ASAP on 29^th of March 2007. The notification for the 911 Communication disclosure was received by the Applicant on 11^th of October 2007.

• This is a difference of more than 7 Months.

[1220] The Applicant received the disclosure which would be used by the Crown to prosecute for Information No:. 07-02500/07-02559, on the 15^th of January, 2008 at 13:13 hours at 91 Natanya Blv, Keswick Ontario, by Purolator (tracking number 2856 562 749). The trial commencement was on the 18^th of January 2008 at 9:30 AM.

This is about two days before the commencement of the trial.

[1221] On the 18^th of January 2008 the first trial Hearing for this matter was schedule to begin in court room 104. The matter was moved to court room 103 with Mr. Amit Ghosh for the Crown, unrepresented defence and P.S. as the presiding justice.

On the said morning of the Applicant informed the first prosecutor Mr. Amit Ghosh of the untimely disclosure. He indicated to the Applicant that the date of the trial could be changed if he was to wave his rights. Th Applicant refused; This is something he would never agree to. About an hour after this event took place another prosecutor came into the court and took possession of my case. The case was then transfered to another Judge (JFK), and another Prosecutor (Ms Goodier) and another court room. The Applicant does not know if it is important or not; But, Ms Goodier came into the court room 3 times to request the accuse case before the first prosecutor would relinquished the case to her. He was first in court room# 103 with prosecutor Mr. Amit Ghosh and presiding Justice P.S. before the matter was moved to court room# 101 with J.F.K. as the presiding Judge and Ms Goodier as Crown’s counsel.

[1222] At or about noon on the said date, for some unknown reason. This matter was transfered to court room 101 with Ms. Goodier for the Crown, unrepresented defence and J.F.K. as the presiding judge.

“[25] Upon ordering the INFORMATION/APPEARANCES log from the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar for OCC# 07-70285 and information# 07-02500/07-02559. I notice that even though the change of court rooms is indicated in the history on the 18^th of January 2008, the name of the original prosecutor, Mr. McCallion was missing. I pointed out the discrepancy to the Clerk. She instructed me to go to the Crown’s Office and to have it remedy. The Crown’s Office, informed me that this should have been remedy at the Administration Office, the department which sent me to the Crow’s Office. I proceeded to inform the Clerk in the Crown’s Office of my concerns. She called the Administrative Office, located on the 1^st floor and spent about 0.5 hours convincing the respective Clerk that the problem should be remedy in the Administrative office.

[26] I went back downstairs to the Administrative Office and to the original respective Clerk of that Office. She stated to me thus; “I guess I sent you on a wile goose chase”. And proceeded to remedy the problem by filling in the missing original Prosecutors name, Mr. McCallion.

[27] Now all the aforementioned would not be significant except; On the 18^th January 2008, in the morning, in court Room 104. I verbally informed the said original Crown’s counsel off the record; that I only received the disclosure for information# 07-02500/07-02559, 2 days before the commencing of the trial. He replied by, informing me that I would have to wave my rights. I interpreted this to mean; I would have to wave may rights in-order to adjourn the trial to a future date. I stated somewhat to this affect with absolute certainty; “absolutely not!”; my rights are my most valuable treasure. I would never trow them away.”

( Wayne Ferron, Affidavit of Wayne Ferron, INMATE APPEAL, page 18, Superior Court of Justice)

Note: The Applicant now believes and can prove that the clerk incorrectly named Mr. McCallion as the original prosecutor spoken about above. The original prosecutor was infact, Amit Ghosh, Assistant Crown!

[1223] On the 11^th of April 2008;

• The Applicant requested further disclosure from the Crown.

• on the 28^th of April 2008, the Crown brought an Application Hearing for disclosure before the courts.

[1224] On the 18^th of April 2008;

• The Applicant sent a hand written letter to the prosecutor via the Crown’s Office; requesting to change the 28^th of April 2008 Application date.

• there was no response from the Crown.

[1225] On the 22^nd of April 2008;

• the Applicant sent a typed letter to the prosecutor via express mail (LT340772160 ca); requesting to change the 28^th of April 2008, application date.

• there was no response from the crown.

[1226] On the 28^th of April 2008;

the Application Hearing brought before the courts by the prosecutor was heard for disclosure by the presiding judge.

the crown was advised by the courts to disclose the York Regional Police audio log for GO 07-70285, MSDS for use of force protocol. During the said application, the claimant was informed that the Day 56 Courthouse Cell video surveillance tape of GO 07-70285, MSDS for OC-spray and use of force protocol. During the Application, the claimant was informed that the Day 56 Courthouse Cells video surveillance tape of GO 07-70285, the plaintiff was requesting as further disclosure was destroyed after 7 days of storage, without notice to the Applicant.

[1227] On the 18^th of April 2008,

the Applicant sent a hand written letter to the prosecutor via the Crown’s Office;

• requesting to change the 28^th of April 2008 Application date.

• there was no response from the Crown, even though prosecutor had given the option in her letter to change the date of the application.

[1228] On the 22^nd of April 2008,

the Applicant sent a typed letter to the prosecutor via express mail (LT340772160 ca);

• requesting to change the 28^th of April 2008, application date.

• there was no response from the Crown, even though prosecutor had given the option in her letter to change the date of the application.

[1229] On the 28^th of April 2008,

the Application Hearing brought before the courts by the prosecutor for disclosure, was heard by the presiding judge. The Crown was advised by the Courts to disclose the York Regional Police audio log for GO 07-70285, MSDS for use of force protocol, MSDS for OC-spray and use of force protocol. During the Application, the Appellant was informed that the Day 56 Courthouse Cells video surveillance tape of GO 07-70285; the plaintiff was requesting as further disclosure was destroyed after 7 days of storage, without notice to claimant.

[1230] On the said date, during the Hearing the Court revealed to the defence that the Day 56 court house cells video surveillance tape of GO# 07-70285 was held for 7 days and then destroyed. This was done without notice to the defence. This was disclosure the defence has been requesting; Relevant video tape evidence under the care and protection of the prosecution. Relevant material for credibility and Charter violation evidence. This evidence was destroyed, just like the evidence recorded on the confiscated piece of copy paper with green writing was lost or destroyed. Evidence under the care, protection and stewardship of the prosecution.

[1231] On the 28^th of April 2008,

the Application Hearing brought before the courts by the prosecutor was heard for disclosure by the presiding judge. The crown was advised by the Courts to disclose the York Regional Police audio log for GO 07-70285, MSDS for use of force protocol, MSDS for OC-spray and use of force protocol. During the Application, the Appellant was informed that the Day 56 Courthouse Cells video surveillance tape of GO 07-70285; the plaintiff was requesting as further disclosure was destroyed after 7 days of storage, without notice to the Appellant.

[1232] On the said date, at the Hearing, one of the things the Applicant requested in its request for further disclosure was an explanation of the questionable statement “OH HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT .... JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY” located in the 911 dispatch log. The Crown asserted that the statement in question was referring to officer Monk, when he was lost north of Highway 9, on the 28^th of March 2008. Now it is prudent to make a mental note, that this explanation was not only excepted by the courts. But the Court lent its credibility to the Crown. By restating the Crown’s reasons, as an explanation for the statement in question, instead of letting the argument be taken to its logical conclusion.

[1233] At some time within the Month of April or May 2008, the Applicant appealed the decision of the York Regional Police Services board to deny the defence relevant information requested under freedom of information. The Mediator for the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario was Ms. Zuzanne Tardiff, the Appeal number was MA08-154 and the institution’s file number was 08-0045. The contact person for the York Regional Police was Janet Ryland (Badge# 5234).

One of the issues in the appeal, was request for information concerning the warrantless search.

[1234] On the 20^th of May 2008;

• the Applicant advised the Crown’s counsel (Ms Goodier), byway of a letter which informed her of abuse of process by the Crown, destruction of evidence, non disclosure, incomplete disclosure and the omission and disinformation perpetrated on the claimant and the Courts by the Crown.

• the Applicant’s aforementioned request to have the matter discussed before the presiding judge and for the on going disclosure issue to be remedied.

• there was no response from the Crown concerning the said letter.

[1235] The applicant was for looking for answers to pending question. Answers to original questions and concerns, namely:

• “Concerning this matter at 00:27 Mar 28, 2007 in the Dispatch Disclosure DP1 made a statement “OH HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT....JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY” in response to a missing statement made correlating to this statement. The missing statement is probably within this interval (00:26 Mar 28 to 00:27 Mar 28) but not including the upper and lower bounds.

• Please provide to the defence a copy of this missing statement and the reason for its deletion.

• Please provide to the defence the reason or reasons for this statement and who it is in reference to.

• Please provide to the defence the complete dispatch voice log of my matter (07-02559 and 07-02500) asper the Court’s encouragement to the Crown, to disclose this material to the defence.

• All these question could be answered and the matter settled if a signed affidavit from the Dispatcher who made the statement “OH HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT....JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY” could be obtained. It should state what statement the statement in question is in response to, who the statement in question is referring to and to whom the statement is made ?

• The Crown’s credibility is in question. The omission and disinformation perpetrated on me and the courts by the crown. Officer Brouton (#1079) denied ever stating that officer Monk (#1399) was ever lost. I am confuse. Is officer Broughton telling the truth or is the crown telling the truth? The defence need to know if the Crown was giving false information in court in the name of Mr Broughton Shawn (#1079) or if he made a false statement under oath in court on 9 of May, 2008 when he denied stating to the crown that officer Monk was lost north of HWY 9 on 28 of March 2008 ?

• Not the complete voice log of the dispatch dialog. But a 35 min recording of mainly unit 3135 and dispatch. The voice log of the dispatch dialog should be at lease 62 mins not 35 mins. This partial discloser was given to me on 9th of May, 2008 at about 9:30 am during trial.

• I need in writting when the charge “Operate Motor Vehicle While Ability Impaired-s. 253(a) C.C.” was actually with drawn. Was it on 18 Jan 2008, or was it on 30 March, 2007.

• I would like it to be noted officially in the records that Day 56 of the court house security tape contained evidence which the defence could use to give full answer to the court within the meaning of sec. 7 of the charter of rights was destroyed after 7 days.”

(Wayne Ferron, 11 April 2008 LETTER TO THE CROWN )

[1236] On the 17^th of June 2008 the Abuse of Process Application against the Crown, file and served by the Applicant was to be heard in court room 303; concerning the Crown speaking on the record on behalf of the officer-in-charge and giving contradictory evidence. Basically giving information on record as an assertion, to explain the questionable statement “OH HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT .... JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY”; which the Appellant proved to be false. The Application was dismissed by the presiding judge. There is 3 possibilities here;

1. It may be the case, that officer Broughton made a false return in the process and relayed this false information to the prosecutor. Who intern, presented this false information as fact to the Courts.

2. Or it may be the case, that the Crown presented this false information on its own accord.

3. Or it may be the case, that both Officer Broughton and the Crown had equal play in presenting this false information before the courts.

What is certain, is that there was no effort to deal with this part of the matter, and the Crown did state that she was speaking on behalf of the Officer-in-charge.

[1237] On 17^th of June 2008;

• The Abuse of Process Application, filed against the Crown’s counsel was quashed by the presiding judge.

[1238] The Applicant wish to give an example of his frustration in dealing with the Crown’s Office. The Applicant requested further disclosure dated the 11^th of April, 2008. The Crown file an application to bring his request before the presiding Judge for the 28^th of April 2008. This is the first time the crown had answered the Applicant’s request, despite the fact he had many request and been to the crowns office many times. He Informed the crown that he was moving on the application date and requested that it be changed to the 1^st of May 2008 in writing.

There was no reply from the Crown.

[1239] The Applicant send another letter via express mail (LT 340 772 160 ) on the 22nd of April 2008 stating;

“Madam Cheryl Goodier

Assistant Crown Attorney

Ministry of the Attorney General

Crown Attorney’s Office

Court House

50 Eagle St. W, Newmarket

ON. L3Y 6B

RE: I am requesting 9:30 am on the 1st of May 2008 for “THE APPLICATION” you are bringing forward.

I Came to the courthouse as soon as I possible could to rebook the APPLICATION DATE after receiving your letter. I waited about 1.5 hrs to speak to you concerning the APPLICATION DATE. But you were busy in court. Therefore, I left you a badly written note for an alternate date for this APPLICATION.

I am moving on that date. I have to vacate my present residence by the 30th of April 2008. The 1st of May 2008 would be a better date to deal with the matter in question. I live in a house with four baby girls from age 6 to 13 and a wife. I am the only male in this house hold. There will be no movers to help with the relocation. The 6 of us will be doing the moving.

Although it will be very difficult, I am willing to deal with the matter of this application on the 1st of May 2008 at 9:30 am.

Ferron”

Again, there was no response from the crown.

[1240] The Applicant went to the application hearing on 28^th of April, 2008, since He was under the impression the crown was “being misleading”, even though the crown had said;

“In the event that you are not able to attend on the 28th of April can you please advise me immediately and we can choose another date, which suits your schedule.”

(CROWNS’S LETTER, April 16, 2008, page# 2(6))

The Crown was surprised to see the Applicant in attendance. Tired, unprepared and exhausted he did his best to present his arguments for further disclosure.

[1241] DISCLOSURE - 911 Recorded Voice Communications for GO 2007-70285

• DCst Broughton, requested on 29^th of March 2007 (ASAP); for impaired driving investigation, for the purpose of laying charges.

• The aforementioned disclosure was disclosed to the plaintiff after 11^th of October 2007. A letter was sent to the Appellant stating; “please be advised our office has received further disclosure for this matter, which is available for you at our office for pick up.” The said disclosure was the 911 Recorded Voice Communication for GO 2007-70285 IN CD format.

• Difference in dates (29^th of March 2007-11^th October 2008) is about 6 to 7 Months.

[1242] DISCLOSURE - Copy of officers notes, from eight officers memorandum notebooks. The officers respectively are DC Burd (#1075), DCst Broughton (#1079), PC Monk (#1399), PC Brown (1666), PC Beattie (#1583), PC Williamson (#1108), SSGT Ringler (#193) and DC Stribbell(#529).

• The aforementioned disclosure notes was produced on 27^th and 28^th of March 2008.

• A copy of three of the aforementioned officers notes were disclosed to the plaintiff on 12^th April 2007, for GO 2007-70285. The said notes were from these three officers respectively; DC Burd (#1075), DCst Broughton (#1075) and DC Stribbell (#529).

• Difference in dates (28^th of March 2007-12^th April 2007) is less than 1 Month.

[1243] DISCLOSURE - Copy of officers notes, from eight officers memorandum notebooks. The officers respectively are DC Burd (#1075), DCst Broughton (#1079), PC Monk (#1399), PC Brown (1666), PC Beattie (#1583), PC Williamson (#1108), SSGT Ringler (#193) and DC Stribbell.

• The aforementioned disclosure notes was produced on 27^th and 28^th of March 2008.

• A copy of three of the aforementioned officers notes were disclosed to the plaintiff on 15^th January 2008 at 13:13 hundred hours, for GO 2007-70285. The said notes were from these seven officers respectively; PC Monk (#1399), PC Brown (#1666), PC Williamson (#1108) and SSGT Ringler (#193).

• Difference in dates (28^th of March 2007-15^th January 2008) is greater than 9 Months.

[1244] DISCLOSURE - Copy Day 56 3D HQ security surveillance tape for GO 2007-70285.

• The aforementioned disclosure notes was produced on 28^th of March 2008, between the hours of 00:25 hundred hours and 10:39 hundred hours.

• The said disclosure was disclosed to the claimant on 15^th January 2008 at 13:13 hundred hours.

• Difference in dates (28^th of March 2007-15^th January 2008) is greater than 9 Months.

[1245] DISCLOSURE - Copy of officer PC Beattie (#1583) notes for GO 2007-70285, from his memorandum notebook.

• Officer Beattie’s notes was requested on the 7^th of March 2008, via officer Janet Raylan (#5234) of the York Regional freedom of information services. The said request was denied.

• The request was later granted through an appeal to the Freedom of Information Commission (Ref.# 8NFOI311).

• A copy of three of the aforementioned officers notes were subsequently disclosed to the claimant on 26^th May 2008.

• Difference in dates (28^th of March 2007-26^th May 2008) is greater than 12 Months.

[1246] On June 17, 2008 the Applicant brought forward an Application for ABUSE OF PROCESS, before the presiding trial judge. At issue were the further disclosure, timely disclosure, nondisclosure, the Crown in speaking for the Officer in Charge relaying false information to court, as explanation for an incriminating statement in the 911 disclosure log. The said issue discussion can be found on page 2 to 3 of the June 17, 2008 Application TRANSCRIPT.

[1247] On April 28, 2008 the Applicant unsuccessfully tried to bring to the presiding judge attention the issue of non disclosure and untimely disclosure. The said issue discussion can be found on page 27 to 30 of the April, 2008 Application TRANSCRIPT.

[1248] On May 9, 2008 the Applicant unsuccessfully tried to bring to the presiding judge attention the issue of untimely disclosure. The documented fact that the Applicant received the bulk of the disclosure the Crown would be relying on, 2.5 days before the commencement of the SUMMARY CONVICTION TRIAL. The said issue discussion can be found on page 06 of the May 9, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT.

[1249] On September 5, 2008 the Applicant unsuccessfully tried to enter Purolator documents as an EXHIBIT. The said documents proved the Applicant received the bulk of the disclosure the Crown would be relying on, 2.5 days before the commencement of the SUMMARY CONVICTION TRIAL. The court refused to enter the documents. The said issue discussion can be found on page 13 to 15 of the September 5, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT.

SUMMARY FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE:

[1250] There was a large amount of letter written to the Crowns Office concerning disclosure. On the 18^th of January, 2008, the commencement of the Trial. The Applicant advised, Mr. Amit Ghosh in court room 104 the initial Crown’s Counsel, that disclosure package was received via Purolator Courier only 2.5 day’s before the set Trial date. The Prosecutor’s remedy was for the Applicant to wave his S. 11(b) Right. The Applicant refused!

(a) The Applicant advised the Courts of the notorious late disclosure again On the 28th of April, 2008, during the Crown’s disclosure Application and number of other times during the course of the Trial upon till the final summation.

(b) Within the Judicial system the Justices of the Court does not even want to speak to accused personally. You are appointed mediator. A overworked well meaning sub Crown who is given the task to speak for the accused. The Duty counsels, priority is not to obtain further disclosure,file a “voir dire” , motions or applications concerning disclosure. But to usher through the legally assemble line as many of the hordes of charged people as it can, to be spoken to for identification of a criminal act. The Applicant went many times to the Duty Counsel’s office to request help in conducting the matter before the court. He was respectfully and kindly declined in favour of the unending line of charged people summoned to be spoken to on the respectful day.

(c) If the disclosure issue is placed within the context of pretrial hearings and the beginning of trial. The Applicant, an unrepresented, nonlegal professional who knew nothing about adjournment, applications, motions, informations or informants within the context of an information. The Court calls you to be spoken to; you go and listen. That was the extent of the Applicant’s knowledge within the said context and this fact was exploited by the Crown to play with it’s disclosure duties and obligations which help to prevent a fair and equitable process. This is a breach of confidence and a violation of the relation ship of trust which exist between the administration of justice and the accuse.

(d) Her Worship error in stating that the Destroyed video tape is the only outstanding disclosure. The Crown disclosed the wrong York Regional Police Transmission audio CD. Therefore, York Regional Police Transmission audio CD of Officer Monk communication with there Dispatch is an outstanding Disclosure. This was extensively brought to Her Worship attention in answering her questions concerning missing exhibits. A one hour summation on the said issue.

(e) Another outstanding disclosure, is the Courthouse Records which the presiding trial Judge instructed the Crown to disclose to the Applicant. So he could identify “OFFICER Y” and called her as a defence witness was never disclosed.

(f) The Police informant or informants for Information 07-02500 was never disclosed. The Police informant for Information 07-02559 was never disclosed.

(g) The Identify and notes of “Officer X” was never disclosed. The documentation for the unlawful warrantless search was never disclosed.

(h) Within the context of the aforementioned facts. Is there only one piece of disclosure outstanding?

(i) The Applicant has filed a large amount of letters asking for further disclosure. So does this show that the Applicant did-not show du-diligence in requesting further disclosure?

(j) The Applicant advised the the original Crown’s Prosecutor ,(Amit Ghosh in court room 104), of the notoriously late disclosures, the Applicant advised the Court on many occasions of the late disclosures and the Applicant advised the Crown of the Disclosure issues. So does this show that the Applicant did not show du-diligence in attempting to bring the disclosure issue to the attention of the Court?

(k) Right to call informants

(l) Right to cross-examine informants

(m) Right to call witness;

(n) Right to call Crown’s witness as defence witness;

(o) Right to cross examine Crown’s witness;

(p) No access to Informants as witnesses and not access to “Officer Y” as a defense witness;

(q) Jurisdictional errors - Defective Information -There is no valid Information for the matter before the court; to give authority or jurisdiction for the summary conviction trial or for a determination of judgement conviction.

[1251] The aforementioned plus the discussion on the none disclosure issues should be enough information to establish that the Charter issue was continually engaged in the lower courts pursuant to the real evidence. Furthermore, their should be enough merits thus far to make out a charter case.

[1252] Pursuant to Mackay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357, “ Charter decision should not and must not be made in a factual vacuum.”

[1253] Pursuant to R v. La, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680, “ Where the existence of certain information has been identified, the Crown must justify non-disclosure by demonstrating either that the information sought is beyond its control, or that it is clearly irrelevant or privileged.”

[1254] The Crown has only been stating arbitrarily, that the nondisclosure is irrelevant to the issues in the matter before the Court. This has never been any demonstration of irrelevance in the contested disclosure issues.

[1255] Pursuant to R v. Laporte (1993), 108 Sask. R. 87 (Q.B) “ ...the Crown should produce a written, itemized inventory of the information in its possession, identifying those times which it intends to disclose and those which it does not and containing, in respect of the latter items, a statement in each case as ti the basis upon which the Crown proposes to withhold disclosure.”

[1256] This has never been done, the Crown refused to disclose some discloser on what seem to be an arbitrary basis. Furthermore, even after agreeing to disclose or being directed by the presiding judge to disclose, the Crown recanted on it’s agreement in open Court and chose not to disclose agreed upon items. Their has never been an itemized inventory of information in the Crown’s possession! Never!!

[1257] Pursuant to R v. O’Conor (1995), 103 C.C.C (3d) 1, “ Depending on the circumstances, different Charter guarantees may be engaged as embodied on the in ss. 7 and 11(d). Issues relating to disclosure by the Crown would normally fall within this category and thus a challenge based on non-disclosure will generally require a showing of of actual prejudice to the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence.”

[1258] The combination of the Crown’s abusive conduct and denial of relevant evidence has coloured and prejudice the respective justices for example, the untimely destruction of NEWMARKET COURT HOUSE VIDEO TAPE EVIDENCE, SYSTEMIC RACISM, POST OFFENCE EVIDENCE, “SELF INCRIMINATION MINING” , Officer’s CRACK COCAIN THEORY, and the Officer’s spreading of disinformation concerning the accuse.

See the sub heading 10.) FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF JUSTICE in APPLICATION RECORD CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

[1259] The voracity and consistency at which the Crown has been denying the Applicant further disclosure owed to him, which he can point to and identify infers an active suppression of evidence for the purpose of personal missions as oppose to the legislative duties of a high public office and the interest of the public.

[1260] These said actions and act of omissions is a direct insult with opposition to the consciousness of the Court and runs contrary to the ATTORNEY’S GENERALS DIRECTIVE, the MARTIN REPORT, the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK, THE HUMAN RIGHTS, the BILL OF RIGHTS, the CHARTER, and the fair trial rights of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.

[1261] The PROVINCE OF ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CROWN POLICY MANUAL is clear on the issue of disclosure;

“PRINCIPLES

Crown counsel must make disclosure according to law. Proper disclosure to the defence, of information in the Crown’s possession, is one of the underpinnings of the fair trial process. The law also provides, however, for limited or delayed disclosure in order to protect privileges and other interests (for example, protection of witnesses). Thus, tensions can arise between the duty to disclose and the co-existing duty to protect those other interests.

Crown counsel should consult about difficult decisions: Disclosure decisions can Have permanent impacts upon trials of accused persons and rights of third parties. Improper disclosure may result in mistrials, retrials, stays of proceedings and lawsuits. Many areas of the law of disclosure continue to develop. Where Crown counsel propose to give, withhold or delay disclosure for reasons which are not recognized by current caselaw or statute, they must have the approval of their Crown Attorney, who, in turn, should consult with the Regional Director of Crown Operations.”

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

[1262] Pursuant to R. v. Chaplin;

“General Crown Obligation to Disclose Information

The rationale behind the Crown's disclosure obligation stems from s. 7

of the Charter reflecting, as this Court stated in R. v. Stinchcombe, supra, at p. 336:

. . . the overriding concern that failure to disclose impedes the ability

of the accused to make full answer and defence. This common law right

has acquired new vigour by virtue of its inclusion in s. 7 of the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as one of the principles of

fundamental justice. . . . The right to make full answer and defence is

one of the pillars of criminal justice on which we heavily depend to

ensure that the innocent are not convicted. “

(R. v. Chaplin, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727, page 16)

CROWN’S OBLIGATION TO MAKE TIMELY DISCLOSURE DEFENCE CONCLUSION:

[1263] Pursuant to MacKay v. Manitoba;

← “Charter decisions should not and must not be made in a factual vacuum. To attempt to do so would trivialize the Charter and inevitably result in ill-considered opinions. The presentation of facts is not, as stated by the respondent, a mere technicality; rather, it is essential to a proper consideration of Charter issues. A respondent cannot, by simply consenting to dispense with the factual background, require or expect a court to deal with an issue such as this in a factual void. Charter decisions cannot be based upon the unsupported hypotheses of enthusiastic counsel. “

(MacKay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357 , page 7)

Please see under the sub heading 9.) NATURAL JUSTICE and 10.) FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF JUSTICE in DOC X - APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

Please see DOC XI - APPLICANT’S AFFIDAVIT (Wayne FERRON).

[1264] The aforementioned plus the discussion on the none disclosure issues should be enough information to establish that the Charter issue was continually engaged in the lower courts pursuant to the real evidence. Furthermore, their should be enough merits thus far to make out a Charter case.

[1265] Pursuant to Mackay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357, “ Charter decision should not and must not be made in a factual vacuum.”

[1266] Pursuant to R v. La, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680, “ Where the existence of certain information has been identified, the Crown must justify non-disclosure by demonstrating either that the information sought is beyond its control, or that it is clearly irrelevant or privileged.”

[1267] The Crown has only been stating arbitrarily, that the nondisclosure is irrelevant to the issues in the matter before the Court. This has never been any demonstration of irrelevance in the contested disclosure issues.

[1268] Pursuant to R v. Laporte (1993), 108 Sask. R. 87 (Q.B) “ ...the Crown should produce a written, itemized inventory of the information in its possession, identifying those times which it intends to disclose and those which it does not and containing, in respect of the latter items, a statement in each case as the basis upon which the Crown proposes to withhold disclosure.”

This has never been done, the Crown refused to disclose some discloser on what seem to be an arbitrary basis. Furthermore, even after agreeing to disclose or being directed by the honorary presiding Justice to disclose, the Crown recanted on it’s agreement in open Court and choose not to disclose agreed upon items. Their has never been disclosed an itemized inventory of information in the Crown’s possession! Never!!

[1269] Pursuant to R v. O’Conor (1995), 103 C.C.C (3d) 1, “ Depending on the circumstances, different Charter guarantees may be engaged as embodied on the in ss. 7 and 11(d). Issues relating to disclosure by the Crown would normally fall within this category and thus a challenge based on non-disclosure will generally require a showing of of actual prejudice to the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence.”

[1270] The combination of the Crown’s abusive conduct and denial of relevant evidence has coloured and prejudice the respective justices for example, the untimely destruction of NEWMARKET COURT HOUSE VIDEO TAPE EVIDENCE, SYSTEMIC RACISM, POST OFFENCE EVIDENCE, “SELF INCRIMINATION MINING” , Officer’s CRACK COCAIN THEORY, and the Officer’s spreading of disinformation concerning the accuse.

Please see the AMENDED NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, and APPLICANT’S FACTUM FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

Please see under the sub heading 2.) EVIDENCE, SYSTEMIC RACISM/RACIAL PROFILING and 10.) FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF JUSTICE, SELF-INCRIMINATION MINING - Section 11(c) in DOC X - APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

Please see DOC XI - APPLICANT’S AFFIDAVIT (Wayne FERRON).

[1271] The voracity and consistency at which the Crown has been denying the Applicant’s further disclosure owed to him, which he can point to and identify, not only infers an active suppression of evidence for the purpose of personal missions as oppose to the legislative duties of a high public office and the interest of the public. But, it also is a direct violation of RULE 2 and RULE 4 of the PROFESSIONAL RULE OF CONDUCT. This has caused reasonable apprehension of bias and has demonstrated in a practical way an active effort in impeding access to justice and a blocking of the ends of justice.

[1272] These said actions and act of omissions is a direct insult with opposition to the consciousness of the Court and runs contrary to the ATTORNEY’S GENERALS DIRECTIVE, the MARTIN REPORT, the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK, the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, the BILL OF RIGHTS, the CHARTER, and the fair trial rights of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.

[1273] Furthermore, mistake with not implementing the Courts Directives and dramatically exceeding the upper limits (360 days) objective for perfecting an Appeal , shows a disregard for; procedural efficiencies, public funds, the public interest, the judicial system’s scarce resources, the Justices heavy work load and hectic schedule, and the Rights and Freedom of the accuse.

[1274] Now their seems to be an effort to remedy the said mistake by further prejudicing the process against the Applicant and inducing other errors byway of bypassing or circumventing determinations which should be executed on a balance of probability; resolved in a fair hearings for the purpose of adjudicating contentions in disclosure issues and Transcripts issues.

[1275] The PROVINCE OF ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CROWN POLICY MANUAL is clear on the issue of disclosure;

“PRINCIPLES

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

[1276] Pursuant to the Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry;

“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.

{...}

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)

[1277] The Applicant would have liked to provide his own Transcripts, but the he has been financially demolished with the words “CRIMINAL” and “CRACK COCAINE” burned within his flesh, without a valid Information or jurisdiction. Furthermore, all the legislative checks and balances used to moved a person from the status of suspect to one of accused has been bypassed. Therefore, since there was no finding of process this honourable Court does not even have an accused for the matter before it.

[1278] Actively denying the Applicant further disclosure owed to him for no justifiable written articulated reasons, is in essence suppressing evidence while acting in opposition to the interest of justice. The contended information at issue is not privilege and the MARTIN REPORT, the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK, and the Attorney General’s very own PROVINCE OF ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CROWN POLICY MANUAL directs that the disclosure at issue should be disclosed. This is a blockade against the Applicant to accessing justice maintained by a psychological force rooted in “post offence conduct” in the initial stages of the criminal process.

[1279] The following citations should be considered to give context to the argument:

“Apart from the criminal law being costly and blunt, as the Court of Appeal observed, there are other reasons for using it with restraint, which naturally focus attention on the early stages of the process. It cannot be forgotten that the criminal law is always capable of being used oppressively, or of appearing to be used oppressively. Abuse or misuse of the criminal process is always a matter of grave concern.”

(Martin Report, Report of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure, and Resolution Discussions, page 12)

“In short, while the administration of justice must be sound at every stage, nowhere is soundness more important than at the outset.”

(Martin Report, Report of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure, and Resolution Discussions, page 13)

“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)

[1280] Similarly, denying an indigent Applicant or more accurately an IMPECUNIOUS Applicant which would have been used as real evidence as witnessed by the Courts to support arguments in showing merits for Leave to Appeal, is in essence erecting an impediment to accessing justice. Which will impede efficiency in finding the ends of justice. Court reporters Transcripts are an acceptable form of evidence by all parties and are critical in resolving contended issues.

Therefore, the information and materials requested to be disclosed should be disclosed so that truth may be found in the matter before this court.

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 VII

APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION

FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

7.) CROWN’S OBLIGATION TO MAKE TIMELY DISCLOSURE DEFENCE

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. (Wayne Ferron, Applicant, 2009, opening address to the Appellate Court)

4. (Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, May 14, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 1)

5. (Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, May 14, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 3-4)

6. (March 28, 2007, APPEARANCE TRANSCRIPTS, R. V. FERRON (07-02500), page 2-9)

7. (RULE 2, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, page 6)

8. (RULE 4, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, page 52-54)

9. (J Bryant, July 20, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559), unofficial)

10. Rule 4, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, Commentary, page 54)

11. (MacPherson J.A., December 13, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190)

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

13. (Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, August 31, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190))

14. (Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, October 15, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 1)

15. (Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, October 15, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 2)

16. (MacPherson J.A., December 13, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190)

17. (Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, October 15, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 10)

18. (Justice Bryant, May 04, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559)

19. (J. Boswell, July 27, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559))

20. (Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, May 14, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 4-5)

21. (Ms. Joanne K. Stewart, Crown Counsel, October 15, 2010, R v. Wayne Ferron (C51190), page 21)

22. RESPONSE TO CROWN’S RESPONSE REGARDING TRANSCRIPTS AND DISCLOSURE(M38706), page 100-106)

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

24. (18.3.5, The Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook )

25. (MARTIN REPORT, REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHARGE SCREENING, DISCLOSURE, AND RESOLUTION DISCUSSIONS,) page 13)

26. (MARTIN REPORT, REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHARGE SCREENING, DISCLOSURE, AND RESOLUTION DISCUSSIONS, page 17)

27. (Honourable Justice Kenkel, September 26, 2008, REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT,

28. Honourable Justice Healey, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE , RULING for Information No.: 07-02559

29. Mr. Tait for the Crown, October 5, 2009 Application Transcript for 07-02559

30. Jeffrey Costain for the Crown, RESPONDENT’S FACTUM, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTE APPELLATE COURT

31. Mr. Tait for the Crown, October 14, 2009 Application Transcript for 07-02559

32. (Doug Kasko, Letter from the Assistant Crown Attorney)

33. Riun Shandler, Letter from the Ministry of The Attorney General, Crown Law Office, Inmate Appeals Administrato

34. (The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK, section 12.3.3)

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

36. Wayne Ferron, Affidavit of Wayne Ferron, INMATE APPEAL, page 18, Superior Court of Justice

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

38. R v. La, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680

39. R v. Laporte (1993), 108 Sask. R. 87 (Q.B)

40. R v. O’Conor (1995), 103 C.C.C (3d) 1

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

42. (R. v. Chaplin, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727, page 16)

43. (MacKay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357 , page 7)

44. DISCLOSURE, PROVINCE OF ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CROWN POLICY MANUAL, March 21, 2005

45. 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

46. (Martin Report, Report of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure, and Resolution Discussions)

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

Constitutional Law Branch

4th 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

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 VII

APPLICATION RECORD

FOR APPLICATION

FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

7.) CROWN’S OBLIGATION TO MAKE TIMELY DISCLOSURE DEFENCE

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 VII: APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION 7.) CROWN’S OBLIGATION TO MAKE TIMELY DISCLOSURE DEFENCE

Folder Contents

Free Membership

Who's online

Who's new