DOC-X VOLUME VIII: APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION 8.) DEFECTIVE INFORMATIONS

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 VIII

APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION

FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

8.) DEFECTIVE INFORMATIONS

8.) DEFECTIVE INFORMATIONS:

Please see page 104 to page 108 for CRACK COCAIN THEORY, in APPLICANT’S FACTUM FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

Please see page 109 to page 111 for the fact concerning the informations, under the heading FOUNDATION OF THE CASE AND INITIAL STAGE OF THE PROCESS FOR INFORMATION NO.: 07-02500 AND IRREGULARITIES, in APPLICANT’S FACTUM FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

Please see page 112 to page 115 for the fact concerning the informations, under the heading INFORMATION NO.: 07-02500, SHOW CAUSE HEARING, in APPLICANT’S FACTUM FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

Please see page 116 to page 117 for the fact concerning the informations, under the heading INFORMATION NO.: 07-02500, RECOGNIZANCE FOR SURTY, in APPLICANT’S FACTUM FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

Please see page 118 to page 125 for the fact concerning the informations, under the heading THE INVESTIGATIVE SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A NEW OR SO CALLED REPLACEMENT INFORMATION NO.: 07-02559, in APPLICANT’S FACTUM FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

Please see page 126 to page 149 for the fact concerning the informations, INFORMATION NO.: 07-02559, NEW INFORMATION in APPLICANT’S FACTUM FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

Please see under the sub heading 4.) BIAS or REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS in APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

TAKE NOTICE: The fact that the information relies on Officer Broughton’s reasonable belief or invoice renders the jurat of the informations defective. In short, the oath taken was a negative oath.

Does dropping one charge and adding another charge renders the new information voidable and does section 523(1.1) still applies?

[1281] The Crown violated Section 11(a) of the Charter when it failed to informed the accused of the new charge within the new information (07-02559) without delay

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

[1282] The Crown failed to issue and serve a summon on the Applicant, for the purpose of identification of Criminals Act, for the new Information 07-02559 filed with a new charge before the RECOGNIZANCE was entered into by the Applicant. Moreover, a RECOGNIZANCE was entered into for Information 07-02500 in accordance with S, 505 of the C.C..

IMPORTANT PROPERTIES OF MATTER C51190:

1) Information 07-02500 is based on Officer Broughton’s invoice;

2) Information 07-02559 is based on Officer Broughton’s invoice;

3) Officer Broughton(1079), is the Officer in Charge and the lead Investigator;

4) Officer Stribbell (529), is the Officer tasked to investigate GO 2007-70285;

5) both Officers have been shown to been misleadings;

6) both Officers have been shown to be perverting the course of justice;

7) The fact that the information relies on Officer Broughton’s reasonable belief or invoice and Officer Stribbell’s investigation renders the jurat of the informations defective. In short, the oaths taken was a negative oath rendering the Informations voidable.

8) If their are uncorrected errors or legal defects associated with the original information, does the replacement information inherits the same errors in the absent of a remedy and with the absent of the implementation of legal checks and balances for the original information? Does inheritance play a factor?

9) does withdrawing the main charge and adding a different charge renders the new Information with a different Informant voidable and does section 523(1.1) still applies?

GIVEN:

1) Information 07-02500 is based on Officer Broughton’s invoice.

2) Information 07-02559 is based on Officer Broughton’s invoice.

3) Officer Broughton(1079), is the Officer in Charge and the Lead Investigator.

4) Officer Broughton did not have nor did he form a reasonable cause to arrest.

5) Officer Monk, the initial arresting Officer, performed an unlawful search.

6) Officer Stribbell (529), is the Officer tasked to investigate GO 2007-70285.

7) both Officer Broughton and Officer Stribbell can be shown to be liars.

8) both Officers have shown to be perverting the course of justice.

9) Informant for Information 07-02500 is Officer B. Hird or Officer Baltal.

10) Informant for Information 07-02559 is Officer Joe Willmets(974).

11) count 2: ...resist Jeffrey Monk, a peace officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 129, clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada;

QUESTIONS:

1) If their are uncorrected errors or legal defects associated with the original information, does the replacement information inherit the same defects in the absent of a remedy?

2) In the absent of the implementation of legal checks and balances for the original information, does inheritance play a factor?

3) Given that the main charge or the initial charge or the foundation charge is withdrawn, and the informants for each information is different, and a recognizance was entered into for Information 07-02500, and count 2 is the only linking factor for both informations, and their was no motion before the courts to modify or replace the original information, do these properties for two active informations conform to the parameters or constraints of Section 523(1.1) of the Criminal Code?

Property 1: Pursuant to Section 495(2)(c), Officers arrested the Applicant without warrant for an offence punishable on Summary conviction.

Property 2: Pursuant to Section 497.(1.1)(b), while in custody, their was a fare the accused would fail to attend Court.

Property 3: Pursuant to S. 788.(1), Information should be Laid in Form 2.

Property 4: Pursuant to Section 523(1.1), Section 507 or 508, as the case may be, does not apply for a new information with the given constraints.

Property 5: Pursuant to Section 505(b), the information should be laid before the recognizance is entered into.

Property 6: Pursuant to Section 508 (b)(i), the information should be confirmed and endorsed accordingly.

Property 7: Contrary to Section 508, the crown did not make a motion to modify, change or replace the information.

Property 8: Pursuant to Section 798, the summary conviction court has jurisdiction over the Applicant.

DEFECTIVE INFORMATION PREMISE:

CASE 1: Officers arrested the Applicant without warrant for an offence punishable on Summary conviction.

CASE 2: While the Applicant was in custody, their was a fair the accused would fail to attend Court.

CASE 3: Their was an information laid?

CASE 4: The Information was confirmed and endorsed accordingly.

CASE 5: The conditions on the new information or replacement information and does the said information conform to its legislative limitations or does it exceed it.

CASE 6: Information 07-02559 cannot rely on the process issued byway of Information 07-02500?

CASE 7: Section 7, Section 11(a), and Section 15 of the Charter apply with respect to the administration of the Informations and their respective Charges. apply?

CASE 8: Their is some sort of inheritance between the lead information and the new information which links them is forming a dependence on validity. In short, the validity of Information 07-02559 has a direct dependence on Information 07-02500?

CASE 9: The disclosed copy of Information 07-02500 a true copy.

CASE 10: The disclosed copy of Information 07-02559 is not a true copy.

CASE 11: Information 07-02500 is not a valid Information.

CASE 12: The Presiding Trial Judge had jurisdiction over the Applicant.

CASE 13: The Presiding Trial Judge did not have jurisdiction over the allege charges against the Applicant in Information 07-02559.

CASE 14: Excluding Information 07-02500 from the Appellate process and the C51190 prejudice the matter before the Court against the Applicant.

INFORMATION 07-02500:

CASE 1:

[1282] Did Officers arrested the Applicant without warrant for an offence punishable on Summary conviction?

[1283] Recall under 5.) UNLAWFUL WARRANTLESS ARREST, it was shown that officers arrested the Applicant without a warrant for an offence punishable on Summary Conviction, so section 495 of the Code would apply and render the arrest unlawful.

[1284] Pursuant to Section 495(2)(c) of C.C., “A peace officer shall not arrest a person without warrant for an offence punishable on summary conviction,”. Hence this would render the arrest unlawful since the said officer would be exceeding the limitation of the Section 495 (2) of the C.C.

[1285] Therefore CASE 1: has been proven.

Thus, Officers arrested the Applicant without warrant for an offence punishable on Summary conviction.

CASE 2:

[1286] While the Applicant was in custody, was their a fair the accused would fail to attend Court?

[1287] Pursuant to the Primary Grounds in the SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT for GO# 2007-70285;

“The accused refuses to communicate with police. Several attempts have been made to have the accused speak to officers so that the officer in charge could confirm to himself that the accused understand and agreed to attend court. The accused would not acknowledge anyone or anything. His wife was contacted and police confirmed that there was no mental or physical reason for the accused not to acknowledge officers. As a result there is concern that the accused will not appear in court as will be required of him.”

(Primary Grounds, SHOW CUSE HEARING page 3 of 5, APPEAL BOOK(C51190), page 164)

Since their was a fair the accused would fail to attend Court, Section 497. (1.1) of the C.C. apply. Pursuant to Section 497.(1.1)(b), “ A peace officer shall not release a person under subsection (1) if the peace officer believes, on reasonable grounds...”

[1288] Therefore CASE 2: has been proven.

Thus while the Applicant was in custody, their was an allege fair the accused would fail to attend Court.

CASE 3:

[1289] Was their an information laid?

Pursuant to Section 788.(1) and 505. of the Code, Information 07-02500 was filed on

March 28, 2007, Informant Peace Officer B. Hird:

count 1 D.W.I./DRUGS

count 2 RESIST ARREST

Pursuant to Section 788.(1)(2)(a) of the Code, a Justice of the Peace received Information 07-02500.

Pursuant to Section 763 of the Code, the Applicant was released under Form 32.1 (a) for information 07-02500 on his own RECOGNIZANCE, and a RECOGNIZANCE OF BAIL for information 07-02500 was entered into.

[1290] Therefore CASE 3: has been proven.

Thus their was an information laid and a RECOGNIZANCE was entered into for Information 07-02500.

CASE 4:

[1291] Was the Information confirmed and endorsed accordingly?

Pursuant to Section 508. (1) “ A justice who receives an information laid before him under section 505 shall (a) hear and consider, ex parte,...”:

• Their was no witness present to give evidence.

• The Informant did not give evidence.

• The presiding Justice considered the allegations of the Informant without his attendance in Court or his given evidence or another witness given evidence.

• The presiding Justice, Justice B. Norton issued Recognizance 07-02500

• The presiding Justice did not confirmed Recognizance 07-02500 on Information 07-0250.

[1292] CASE 4:

Thus it is not entirely clear if the justice who received Information 07-02500 laid before him under Section 505 did all that should have been done. But small errors or errors on the face of the Information are amendable. What is not curable is a faulty jurat with a negative oath.

Therefore, it is not entirely clear weather Information 07-02500 was confirmed and endorse accordingly.

CASE 5:

[1293] What are the conditions on the new information or replacement information and does the said information conform to its legislative limitations or does it exceed it?

[1294] Pursuant to the 2009 edition of MARTIN’S CRIMINAL CODE;

523.(1) Where an accused, in respect of an offence with which he is charged, has not been taken into custody or has been released from custody under or by virtue of any provision of this Part, the appearance notice, promise to appear, summons, undertaking or recognizance issue to, given or entered into by the accused continues in force, subject to its terms, and applies in respect of any new information charging the same offence or an included offence that was received after the appearance notice, promise to appear, summons, undertaking or recognizance was issued, given or entered into...”

“523.(1.1) Where an accused, in respect of an offence with which he is charged, has not been taken into custody or is being detained or has been released from custody under or by virtue of any provision of this Part and after the order for interim release or detention has been made, or the appearance notice, promise to appear, summons, undertaking or recognizance has been issued, given or entered into, a new information, charging the same offence or an included offence, is received, section 507 or 508, as the case may be, does not apply in respect of the new information...”

“523.(3) The provision of section 517, 518 and 519 apply, with such modification as the circumstances require, in respect of any proceedings under subsection (2), except that subsection 518(2) does not apply in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence listed in section 469...”

(MARTIN’S ANNUAL CRIMINAL CODE, 2009 edition, page 1029)

NOTE: Since the checks and balances are removed, does the new information inherit all the properties of the old information? What makes the new information valid or what legislation or process is the new information relying on for validity?

[1295] It would appear that the York Regional Police in filing a new or replacement Information 07-02559 byway of a different informant (Joe Willmets.), with a new Charge (count 3), and is relying on Section 523(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

[1296] But their are constraints or limitation placed on Section 523(1.1) for the new information containing the same offences or an included offence. Information 07-02559 has bypassed all the legislative checks and balances, so Section 523(1.1) is essential for its validation.

Information 07-02500 was filed on

March 28, 2007, Informant Peace Officer B. Hird

count 1 D.W.I./DRUGS --s.253(a) c.c.

count 2 RESIST ARREST --s.129(a) c.c.

RECOGNIZANCE OF BAIL 07-02500 was entered into on

March 28, 2007, Presiding Judge was the Honourable Justice B. Norton

count 1 D.W.I./DRUGS--s.253(a) c.c.

count 2 RESIST ARREST--s.129(a) c.c.

Information 07-02559 was filed on

March 29, 2007, by informant Peace Officer Joe Willmets.

count 1 D.W.I./DRUGS --s.253(a) c.c.

count 2 RESIST ARREST --s.129(a) c.c.

count 3 DANGEROUS DRIVING--s.249(2)

[1297] Different Informants with different Informations was not a permutation looked at in the legislation, so it is reasonable to assume that this permutation of the lead information and the replacement information containing a new count or new charge filed by a different Informant does not conform to the constraints of Section 523(1.1) but exceeds it limitation. Hence, information 07-02559 cannot invoke Section 523(1.1) of the Criminal code to bypass Section 507 and 508 of the Code the legislative checks and balances to obtain jurisdiction over the Applicant and the allege charges against him.

“[21] The language used in s. 523(1) clearly indicates that it is triggered only when a replacement information is applied to an accused person who is already at liberty as a result of either:

(i) never having been taken into custody; or

(ii) after having been taken into custody, being granted an order of release.

[22] In these circumstances, s. 523(1) operates to apply either the document compelling that accused person’s appearance in court or their release order to the replacement information. For example, if an accused person is charged with an offence and released on a Promise to Appear, and a replacement information charging them with same offence or an included offence is subsequently received, s. 523(1) applies the original Promise to Appear to the new information.

{...}

[24] Next, s. 523(1.1) deals with situations distinct from those covered by subsection (1). A plain reading of subsection (1.1) indicates that it applies when a replacement information is issued against an accused person who:

(i) is at liberty as a result of never having been taken into custody; or

(ii) is not at liberty, having been ordered detained in custody; or

(iii) is at liberty after having been taken into custody and subsequently ordered released.

[25] The remainder of s. 523(1.1) states that in these circumstances, neither s. 507 nor s. 508 apply to the replacement information, and either the original document compelling the accused’s appearance in court or the original detention or release order applies to the new information.

[26] There are several distinctions to be made between subsections (1) and (1.1). First, the former makes no provision for an accused person subject to an order detaining them in custody. Second, the latter specifically refers to ss. 507 and 508, stating that these provisions do not apply in circumstances where a new information is received. Last, subsection (1.1) contains no provisions similar to those contained in subsections (1)(a) and (b).”

(R. v. Aucoin, 2006 ABQB 895, page 6-7)

[1298] In The Applicant’s humble opinion, Different Informants would render the two jurat containing the reasonable belief of the respective Informants different. How is one able to justify that the replacement information is similar enough to the lead information, so it can replace it when the 3 most important elements of an Information are different, mainly the counts, the informant, and the jurat.

[1299] Moreover, on January 18 it only Appears that the Crown officially replaced Information 07-02500 with Information 07-02559. Pursuant to the certified Informations Information 07-02550 with count 2 was active concurrently with Information 07-02559 counts & count 3 up-until September 26, 2008 when the Honourable Justice Kenkel withdrew count 2 on Information 07-02500. This is contrary to the dialogue in January 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT(07-02559), however this is what is indicated or inferred on the original Informations. Pursuant to Section 523(1.1), Information 07-02559 cannot proceed under it own process; it proceeds under RECOGNIZANCE OF BAIL 07-02500, with a new charge (count 3 DANGEROUS DRIVING--s.249(2)) and minus a withdrawn charge(count 1 D.W.I./DRUGS --s.253(a) c.c.), and in addition to a change of Informants from Peace Officer B. Hird to Peace Officer Joe Willmets.

[1300] It is self evident, that the only common element between both Informations was count 2: RESIST ARREST. The Crown had removed count 1: D.W.I./DRUGS, the main charge or original charge from the replacement Information and the lead Information 07-02500. This, is after maintaining on both informations, count: 1 D.W.I./DRUGS from March 2007 to January 2008. This is almost 1 year, without moving to withdraw count: 1 D.W.I./DRUGS on both information. It would appear on the face, that this was done to force compliance with Section 523(1.1) ignored to maintain a valid Information 07-02559 while the different Informants for with different oaths for the respective Informations was over looked.

“It was necessary to proceed under

s. 455.4(1) (now s. 508(1) within the time-limit

prescribed by s. 455.1 (now s. 505) and have the

appearance notice, promise to either confirmed or cancelled.

{...}

In an effort to solve this problem, ss. 507(1)

and 523(1) were amended and s. 523(1.1) was added to

the Criminal Code in 1985. The net effect of these

amendments and addition is that once an accused has

been issued an appearance notice, has been released

pursuant to a promise to appear or has entered into a

recognizance, that process will continue in force and

apply to any information charging the same offence or

an included offence that is laid thereafter. In

other words, a peace officer no longer needs to be

concerned about complying with s. 505. He may lay an

information under s. 505 (or under s. 504) any time

and rely upon the appearance notice, promise to

appear or recognizance to compel appearance.

Thus, an officer who proceeds under ss. 496, 497, or 498 is

entitled to subsequently lay an information and, where this

occurs, s. 523(1) and 523(1.1) ensures that the original

process issued by the officer continues to apply, without the

need for proceeding in accordance with s. 505.”

(HMTQ v. McCarthy, page 13 - 14)

[1301] Section 523(1.1) does not provide any information or direction concerning the permutation where the Informants are different for the respective Information and the main count 1 D.W.I./DRUGS--s.253(a) c.c. which formed the reasonable objective cause to arrest is withdrawn from both informations.

[1302] Pursuant to HMTQ v. McCarthy, it would seem that the purpose of 523(1.1) is to ensure the process relating to Information 07-02500 will continue in force and apply to Information 07-02559 charging the same offences or an included offence.

Is Information 07-02559 a valid Information?

“Thus, an officer who proceeds under ss. 496, 497, or 498 is

entitled to subsequently lay an information and, where this

occurs, s. 523(1) and 523(1.1) ensures that the original

process issued by the officer continues to apply, without the

need for proceeding in accordance with s. 505.

[30]Given the above, I find it questionable whether

s. 523(1.1) was intended to permit the Crown to proceed on a

revised information in reliance upon process issued under

s. 507 by a justice on a prior information.

[31]In the result, I conclude that s. 523(1.1) does not have

the effect contended by the Crown and does not assist in curing

the problem of lack of compliance with s. 507 suggested by Mr.

McCarthy.

{...}

[34]However, although Judge Sperry may have had jurisdiction

over Mr. McCarthy, the question remains as to whether he had

jurisdiction over the offences in the relaid information. This

gives rise to two sub-questions:

1. Must an information have been received by a justice

before a Provincial Court Judge acquires jurisdiction to deal

with the offences alleged; and

2. Does process need to issue with respect to a relaid

information in order for a provincial court to have

jurisdiction over the offences therein alleged?

[35]With respect to the first question, a Provincial Court

Judge has jurisdiction to receive an information. Since s. 2

of the Criminal Code defines "justice" to include a Provincial

Court Judge, I am aware of no authority precluding a Provincial

Court Judge from receiving an information, even where the

Provincial Court Judge is sitting as a Preliminary Inquiry

Court. Thus, Judge Sperry has jurisdiction to receive the

relaid information.

[36]With respect to the second question, as a matter of law,

it appears an information is not rendered invalid where a

justice refuses to issue process. Ewaschuk in Criminal

Pleadings and Practice in Canada writes as follows, at

para. 10:3096:

A justice must receive an information valid on its

face and properly sworn. However, where the justice

determines that the informant has not made out a

prime facie case to issue process either by the

informant's allegations or by the witnesses' evidence

or both, the justice will not issue process but the

information still remains valid.

R. v. Whitmore (1987) 41 C.C.C. (3d) (Ont. C.J.) 555; aff'd 51

C.C.C. (3d) 294 (Ont. C.A.) is cited for this proposition.

There, the accused sought prerogative relief relating to the

manner in which a justice had inquired into whether process

should issue against him. In considering the consequence of a

justice's refusal to issue process, Mr. Justice Ewaschuk

stated, at p. 569 (C.C.C.):

It is clear that where a justice decides that a case

is not made out for issuing process he does not quash

the information before him. Instead, the informant

is entitled to seek process from another justice.

The rule that an information remains valid even

where process is refused reinforces the conclusion

that the justice at a pre-inquiry does not review the

informant's grounds for belief for swearing the

information under s. 455 (now s. 507), but determines

under s. 455.3 whether the informant's allegations,

along with the evidence of any witnesses, give rise

to a prima facie case such that the justice can form

the opinion that a case has been made out to issue

process to compel attendance to the charges contained

in the information. “

(HMTQ v. McCarthy, page 15-16)

[1303] One cannot Transfer the credibility or integrity encapsulated in the Oath of the Informant from the lead Information to a different Informant of the replacement Information. The truthfulness, the integrity, and the credibility of an information is in essence, carried on the shoulders of the reasonable belief of the Informant. In-fact a faulty jurat, which infers a faulty oath, which infers a negative oath with respect to the informant’s reasonable belief is one of the few defects which renders the Information incurable and therefore voidable.

[1304] The Informant for Information 07-02500 is different than the Informant for the lead information and the main charge of both Information has been withdrawn. This is count 1: D.W.I./DRUGS, which is bound to the Officers allege reasonable objective belief to arrest. So, it is reasonable to infer that the Information 07-02559 exceed or falls outside the limits of Section 523(1.1). Therefore, the Section 523(1.1), does not apply to Information 07-02559 for the aforementioned reasons.

[1305] Thus CASE 5: has been proven.

Hence, Information 07-02559 exceeds the legislative limitation placed on Section 523(1.1), by violating the its implied conditions.

CASE 6:

[1306] Can Information 07-02559 rely on Section 523(1.1)?

Pursuant to the findings of CASE 5: Information 07-02559 cannot invoke section 523(1.1). Therefore Section 505 and Section 508 applies to Information 07-02559 and it cannot bypass the legislative checks and balances which protects the accuse from unnecessary harassment when the full force of justice is borough to bear on the accuse.

[1307] Pursuant to Section 505(b), the time limitation of filing Information 07-02559 was violated when it was filed by Police Informant Joe Willmets one day after Recognizance 07-02500 was entered into with the Officer in-charge, DCSt Broughton and endorsed by Justice B. Norton, but not confirmed on Information 07-02500.

[1308] Furthermore, pursuant to Section 508 (b)(i), Information 07-02559 was not confirmed and it was not quashed, nor was it endorsed accordingly to invoke process. In short, Information 07-02559 was received by a Justice of the Piece, but a Presiding Justice did not issue process.

[1309] Although Information 07-02559 was active, it was rendering a nullity after the Applicant’s arraignment.

[1310] The Applicant by virtue of Appearing before a Presiding Justice gave the Courts Jurisdiction over himself, however, their was no jurisdiction over the allege charges of a voidable Information 07-02559, which was lost when Information 07-02559 bypassed Section 505 and 508 of the C.C. and also fail to find process before the Applicant pled not-guilty to its allegations (count 2 & 3).

“COURTROOM CLERK: Do you wish him arraigned on the

replacement information?

MS. GOODIER: Yes. Just on the - I think it's

just counts two and three - not the impaired

count.

COURTROOM CLERK: Yes.

MS. GOODIER: Thank you.

COURTROOM CLERK: Okay. WAYNE FERRON YOU STAND

CHARGED on or about the 27th day of March in the

year, 2007, at the Town of Georgina, in the

Regional Municipality of York, did resist Jeffrey

Monk, a peace officer, in the execution of his

duty contrary to section 129(a) of the Criminal

Code of Canada. AND FURTHER THAT WAYNE FERRON STANDS CHARGED on or about the 27th day of March in the year, 2007, at

the Town of Georgina, in the Regional Municipality

of York, did operate a motor vehicle on Woodbine

Avenue in a manner dangerous to the public

contrary to section 249(2) of the Criminal Code.

How does the Crown elect to proceed?

MS. GOODIER: By summary conviction.

COURTROOM CLERK: The Highway Traffic Act provides

that upon conviction of the offence for which you

are charged and the circumstances indicated

therein, your driver's licence shall be suspended

for the period prescribed by statute. How do you

plead to each of these charges, sir? Guilty or

not guilty?

MR. FERRON: Not guilty.”

( Arraignment, July 9, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, page 1-7)

[1311] It would seem that the Prosecutor is relying on the process Information 02500 issued under s. 507? Is Information 07-02559 relying on the process by which information 07-02500 was issued? It would appear that the Crown is proceeding on Information 07-02559 in reliance upon the process issued under Section 507 by Justice B. Norton on Information 07-02500.

“ANNOTATIONS

Subsection (1.1) - The Crown cannot proceed on a revised information in reliance upon process issued under s. 507 by a justice of the peace on a prior information.

A provincial court judge has jurisdiction over the accused by virtue of the accused’s appearance before him.

It is not necessary for process to issue with respect to the relaid information in order for the provincial court judge to have jurisdiction over the offences: R. v. McCarthy (1998), 131 C.C.C. (3d) 102 (B.C.S.C.)”

(MARTIN’S ANNUAL CRIMINAL CODE, 2009 edition, page 1029)

[1312] Thus CASE 6: has been proven.

Therefore Information 07-02559 cannot rely on the process issued byway of Information 07-02500 since it is unable to rely on Section 523(1.1) by virtue of it exceeding the said statues legislative limitation .

CONTRARY to Section 7, 11(a):

CASE 7:

[1313] Does Section 7 and Section 11(a) apply?

[1314] The Crown failed to issue and serve a summon on the Applicant, for the purpose of identification of Criminals Act for Information 07-02559 filed with a new charge and by a different Informant (Joe Willmets) before RECOGNIZANCE 07-02500 was entered into by the Applicant.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

Failure to appear

502. Where an accused who is required by an appearance notice or promise to appear or by a recognizance entered into before an officer in charge or another peace officer to appear at a time and place stated therein for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act does not appear at that time and place, a justice may, where the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance has been confirmed by a justice under section 508, issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused for the offence with which the accused is charged.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 502; 1992, c. 47, s. 70; 1996, c. 7, s. 38; 1997, c. 18, s. 54.

[1315] The Crown violated section 11(a) of the Charter when it failed to informed the accused of the new charge within the new information (07-02559) without delay. He was never served with the new information. The old and new information was active at the same time causing unnecessary confusion and duplication of charges. In-fact it it appears as-though there is a lot of confusion concerning charges. This is documented in the hearings before the trial and Crown’s counsel (Joanne Stuart’s), 22 page response after her 9 Months investigation.

[1316] Furthermore, the aforementioned confusion surrounding Information 07-02559 help in delaying the process, preventing a smooth and efficient transition of the Applicant through the criminal judicial system. And the present Appeal at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO is still being affected. This is an impediment placed before the Applicant in accessing justice and enjoying the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Section 7 of the Charter. This has an effect on the life liberty and pursuit of happiness of the Applicant.

[1317] The first instance of the Applicant being informed of the new charge within the new information is at the pre trial on the 13^th of July 2007 with the Honourable Justice Minard, when the Crown offered a plea bargain. But, the pretrial was off the record.

[1318] Their was an initial disclosure disclosed in April 2007. However, one must look at the situation in context. This was the first time the Applicant was ever charged with allege offences, he had no lawyer and only had a grade 11 Secondary School introductory law course to rely on. His legal know was severely deficient, and wanting.

[1319] The earliest official documented evidence the accuse have of the Dangerous driving offence is the 3^rd of August 2007, when Mr. Honey (Duty Counsel) asked the Court Clerk to confirm the accused charges, thereby informing the Applicant of the two active informations which duplicate charges. The new Information (07-02559) officially replaced the old Information (07-02550), or so it seemed, on the 18^th of January 2008 without a motion by the Crown for leave of the Court to amend the old Information. All this was done without the new Information ever being confirmed or the accused being summoned for the identification of a criminal action or the accused being formally informed.

[1320] The Crown failed to issue and serve a summon on the Applicant, for the purpose of identification of Criminals Act, for the new Information 07-02559 filed with a new charge and by a different Informant from the Lead Information before RECOGNIZANCE 07-02500 was entered into by the Applicant. The following summarized brief history of events surrounding the Informations and count 1.

COUNT: 1 D.W.I./DRUGS -- SUMMARY OF FACTS FOR:

[1321] Pursuant to Officer Ringler;

“He was --- at scene but not talking.

They suspect impaired by drugs

- cocaine or crack cocaine.

Struggle at scene, non - cooperative.

Cuffed & put into cell 3DM5.

--- pulled shirt over his face.”

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

[1322] Count 1 on the Information or Informations was supposed to be withdrawn;

first on March 30, 2007;

then on April 13, 2007;

then on Jan 18, 2008;

then on June 17, 2008 in the YRP records after the Applicant filed an abuse of process Application with respect to the said issue. Yet the issue persisted at The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Or maybe it was just a desperate search for self incrimination material?

[1323] Pursuant to the SHOW CAUSE HEARING;

“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.”

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

CROWN’S POSITION 1:

[1324] The following result of the Crown’s investigation is false or at least misleading and misinforming. The March 28, 2007 Appearance Transcript was disclosed to the Crown and lower Courts, this is all that is needed a evidence to the contrary for the following statement;

“1. March 28, 2007 was not listed as an appearance date (I note that this was the date of your arrest and the Information was not sworn until March 29, 2007);

2. March 30, 2007 was listed;

{...}

As there is no record on the Information of you appearing on March 28, 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. “

(Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Letter to the Applicant on 14^th of May 2010, page 3)

“2) Set Date Appearances

(i) March 28, 2007

The Information (i.e. the charging document) does not indicate that you were in Court on March 28, 2007. I note however, that the Information was marked a

“replacement” Information and was sworn on March 29, 2007. I trust that you did appear in bail court on March 28, 2007 and were released following a bail hearing. Your materials do not specify what occurred in court on the record (i.e. that would have been recorded by a Court Reporter) on this date that relates to your grounds of appeal. Your materials do refer to a conversation that appears to have occurred off the record in the courthouse cells which would not be captured by a Court Reporter’s transcript.”

(Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Response to the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010, page 3)

[1325] Pursuant to the MARCH 30, 2007 APPEARANCE HEARING;

“MR. MANZO: Well, first I’m gonna ask that the charge of impaired driving be withdrawn.

THE COURT: Thank you. So we...

COURT REGISTRAR: (Inaudible).

THE COURT: We can do that. That is - there’s a (inaudible)...

COURT REGISTRAR: There are two informations, Your Worship so which impaired driving....

THE COURT: If the second information is part of that replacement...

COURT REGISTRAR: That’s right.

THE COURT: ...and then they’ve added the dangerous driving charge on.

MR. MANZO: Right. That one’s gonna remain. And the original information?

THE COURT: Is an ability impaired and an obstruct.

MR. MANZO: Okay. maybe we should just keep them together till the next appearance because I - the information I received is somewhat - it - it tells me to withdraw the impaired but it doesn’t tell me whether I have to withdraw it on both informations or just the old one. It’s not quite clear to me. And, I mean, it can be dealt with at the next appearance I think.”

(March 30, 2007 Hearing Transcript (07-02559&07-02500), page 2-5)

[1326] The following result of the Crown’s investigation is false or at least misleading and misinforming. The March 30, 2007 Appearance Transcript was disclosed to the Crown and lower Courts, this is all that is needed a evidence to the contrary for the following statement;

“(ii) March 30, 2007

The Information notes that you were present in Court on March 30, 2007 but that when your matter was called, you failed to appear. A bench warrant with discretion was issued and your matter was adjourned to April 13, 2007 to be spoken to. Your materials and the trial transcript dated June 17, 2008 indicates that there was some discussion on that date about whether the impaired driving charge would be withdrawn at that stage. I expect that your reference to this date relates to your complaint that the impaired driving charge should have been withdrawn sooner. The Information does not indicate that the impaired driving charge was withdrawn on this date. Rather it notes that the impaired driving charge was formally withdrawn by the trial Crown on January 18, 2010. The transcript of January 18, 2010 also confirms this. Regardless of what date the Crown requested that this charge be withdrawn, it is officially noted as withdrawn and no one can or will now proceed against you on that particular charge.”

((Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Response to the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010, page 3)

[1327] On a certified copy of Information 074-02559, on the second last page, at the lower left corner of the copy of the information is written “ count (1)” and stamped “WITHDRAWN REQUEST OF THE CROWN”, “APR 13 2007”, “JAN 18 2008”. Take note that “APR 13 2007” is crossed out.

[1328] On a certified copy of Information 074-02500, on the last page, at the lower left corner of the copy of the information is written “ count (1)” and stamped “WITHDRAWN REQUEST OF THE CROWN”, and stamped“ JAN 18 2008”.

[1329] On the last page, at the lower right corner of the copy of the Information 07-02500 is written in block letter handwriting and underlined; “ Wayne Ferron ... Count (2)”, and also written in block letter handwriting but not underlined; “WITHDRAWN @ Request of Crown Attorney”. In addition, the said page at the said location is stamped “SEP 26 2008” and signed below above the heading Judge by J. F. Kenkel.

TAKE NOTICE: This infers that Information 2 was active up until September 26, 2008. This was probable done to satisfy Section 523(1.1), but is information 2 still operating with in the limitation of the invoked legislation.

[1330] On the 30^th of March 2007, The Applicant, 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.

[1331] On the 13^th of April 2007;

The Crown disclosed Initial Disclosure to the Applicant. The cover page of the said document is titled “CHARGE SCREENING FORM

NEWMARKET CROWN ATTORNEY’S OFFICE - JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF YORK”. On the said cover page is indicated;

1. the name of the accused, Wayne Ferron;

2. the type of court, adult court;

3. the charges, resist arrest and dangerous driving;

4. “the Crown will withdraw the following charge(s)”, impaired driving;

5. their is no indication for “the Crown will proceed on the charges as laid”;

6. their is no indication for “the Crown will recommend to the police that the following charge(s) be considered:”;

7. the document is dated 13^th of April 2007;

[1332] TAKE NOTICE: The DUTY COUNSEL, wrote and initialed the “CHARGE SCREENING FORM NEWMARKET CROWN ATTORNEY’S OFFICE - JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF YORK” (Initial Disclosure), on the right hand side of the cover page the following; “Crown will take a plea to careless driving for $300 fine”

The DUTY COUNSEL probable did this at the pre-trial hearing with the Honourable Justice Minard presiding.

[1333] On the July 13^th 2008, a pre-trial hearing was held off the record. The Honourable Justice Minard requested of the Applicant to obtain a note from the doctor explaining the Drug Test.

“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. So I don’t know what the blue sheet had to say about it. So if I can just - There was a lengthy JPT conducted already in this matter on july 13^th with justice Minard. In This matter, Your Honour, a careless driving and a fine was proposed and the gentleman had to show a document, as he has today, that he has been drug tested by a doctor”.

(3^rd of August 2007 Hearing Transcript; on page# 1)

[1334] On the 3^rd of August 2007 , the Applicant disclosed to the Crown on record, his drug test again with the requested doctors note by Justice Minard, explaining the said test. On the said day is when the the Applicant was Officially notified of the new Information 07-02559 with a new charge added and it was read out load in open court. There was no summons to appear for the identification of a criminal act issued.

[1335] Pursuant to August 3, 2007 Appearance Transcripts;

“MR. BILLINGTON: If I can return to the matter of Wayne Ferron, lines 55 to 59.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HONEY: Thank you, and I’ve had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Ferron. Madam Clerk, I wonder if I could just confirm the charges Mr. Ferron is still facing?

COURTROOM CLERK: At line 55 to 56 is impaired operation and resist peace officer.

THE COURT: Impaired operation, obstruct police and dangerous operation?

COURTROOM CLERK: Yes. The second information is a replacement, Mr. Honey, so the charge that’s added is dangerous operation.”

(August 3, 2007 Hearing Transcript; page 2, line 10-23)

ARRAIGNMENT -- Jan 18, 2008:

[1336] Their was no Motion filed for the new information to be placed before a Judge by the Crown to cure any defect, to modify or to add or remove any charges or Information 07-02500. Furthermore, their was no Application file by the Crown to vacate the prior order issued with respect to Information 07-02500.

“THE COURT: Okay. Which information is the Crown

proceeding on? There's a replacement and an

original.

MS. GOODIER: Oh, is there?

THE COURT: Yes. There's an impaired - an

information alleging impaired and assault resist,

or resist officer, not assault resist - resist

officer in the execution of his duty. Then in a

second information that's marked, replacement,

saying impaired - alleging offences of impaired,

same resist offence and an alleged dangerous

driving.

MS. GOODIER: It should be that one because I

believe, if it hasn't been done already, the

impaired count should be marked withdrawn if it

has not been done so.

THE COURT: It hasn't been on this information ...

MS. GOODIER: Okay.

THE COURT: ...and I don't think it has on the

other information. So, Mr. Ferron, do you

understand that it's the Crown's position that you

are not proceeding on the impaired charge? Ms.

Goodier?

MS. GOODIER: Yes, that's correct.

{...}

COURTROOM CLERK: Do you wish him arraigned on the

replacement information?

MS. GOODIER: Yes. Just on the - I think it's

just counts two and three - not the impaired

count.

COURTROOM CLERK: Yes.

MS. GOODIER: Thank you.

COURTROOM CLERK: Okay. WAYNE FERRON YOU STAND

CHARGED on or about the 27th day of March in the

year, 2007, at the Town of Georgina, in the

Regional Municipality of York, did resist Jeffrey

Monk, a peace officer, in the execution of his

duty contrary to section 129(a) of the Criminal

Code of Canada.

AND FURTHER THAT WAYNE FERRON STANDS CHARGED on or

about the 27th day of March in the year, 2007, at

the Town of Georgina, in the Regional Municipality

of York, did operate a motor vehicle on Woodbine

Avenue in a manner dangerous to the public

contrary to section 249(2) of the Criminal Code.

How does the Crown elect to proceed?

MS. GOODIER: By summary conviction.

COURTROOM CLERK: The Highway Traffic Act provides

that upon conviction of the offence for which you

are charged and the circumstances indicated

therein, your driver's licence shall be suspended

for the period prescribed by statute. How do you

plead to each of these charges, sir? Guilty or

not guilty?

MR. FERRON: Not guilty.”

( Arraignment, January 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, page 1-7)

[1337] The Crown’s Attorney did-not invoke Section 579(1) of the C.C. to stay the proceedings under the lead information (Information 07-02500), and then introduce a new information (Information 07-02559) of the charges they felt their was merits to pursue, given that Information 07-02559 didn't meet their expectations or needs..

Attorney General may direct stay

579. (1) The Attorney General or counsel instructed by him for that purpose may, at any time after any proceedings in relation to an accused or a defendant are commenced and before judgment, direct the clerk or other proper officer of the court to make an entry on the record that the proceedings are stayed by his direction, and such entry shall be made forthwith thereafter, whereupon the proceedings shall be stayed accordingly and any recognizance relating to the proceedings is vacated.

Recommencement of proceedings

(2) Proceedings stayed in accordance with subsection (1) may be recommenced, without laying a new information or preferring a new indictment, as the case may be, by the Attorney General or counsel instructed by him for that purpose giving notice of the recommencement to the clerk of the court in which the stay of the proceedings was entered, but where no such notice is given within one year after the entry of the stay of proceedings, or before the expiration of the time within which the proceedings could have been commenced, whichever is the earlier, the proceedings shall be deemed never to have been commenced. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 579; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 117.

[1338] The silent underling theme running through the aforementioned is; the Crown had many options, the Attorney General has a very broad and powerful discretion, the Prosecution has many legal instruments tho correct initial errors or oversight to their objective in setting the wheel of justice into motion against the Applicant. Instead of proceeding in stead of proceeding through a legal fog to seek the ends of justice and expecting a non e-legal professional, a reasonable person of the street to understand all the confusions the lack of Judiciousness in administering Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559.

[1339] This in the Applicant’s humble view can only be characterize as the Crown’s counsel abusing the process and not being forth coming, not being transparent or open in the judicial process. The main reason why an abuse of process application was filed at the lower Courts was because the Crown had promised to withdraw from day one, count: 1 D.W.I./DRUGS. The confusion and uncertainty is a barrier, given that time is against the Applicant, since he must live and maintain his beloved children’s needs in accordance with the law of the land. Which he has failed to do!

[1340] Asper 17^th June 2008, Application Hearing for abuse of process, on page 10, line 18-30. Ms. Goodier, the Crown Prosecutor states;

“Can I actually just point out, sorry ...that appears to be in the transcript on page 4 from the 30th of March 2007, because at that point in time, there were apparently two informations before the Court for Mr. Ferron. ...So it looks like it was withdrawn on the one and not on the other that had the added count of dangerous driving on it. That appears to be where the confusion comes in on; just to clarify.”

(Ms. Goodier, June 17, 2008, Application Hearing for abuse of process, on page 10, line 18-30)

[1341] On Sept 26, 2008, the Honorable Justice Kenkel Miss spoke wile rendering his REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT. Their is no inference here, just a stating or noting of the fact of what occurred.

“THE COURT: Okay. All right. With respect to - you can stand up just for a moment, Mr. Ferron, with respect to the impaired driving count I’m going to fine you in the amount of $600.00. {...}

MS. GOODIER: I’, sorry. I think Your Honour said the impaired count. I think you probably meant the dangerous driving.

THE COURT: I meant - I meant the dangerous. If I said impaired it’s - I misspoke...”

(R, V. Wayne FERRON, REASONS for JUDGMENT/SENTENCING, September 26, 2008, page 19)

CROWN’S POSITION 2:

[1342] Pursuant to Ms. Joanne Stuart;

“(12) The original Drugs/Alcohol subjective assessment by T.A. Patterson and a certified copy of all the questions used by Marguerite Campbell BSW to perform the subjective Drugs/Alcohol assessment

The original Drugs/Alcohol subjective assessment by T.A. Patterson

and a certified copy of all the questions used by Marguerite Campbell

BSW to perform the subjective Drugs/Alcohol assessment

I received your request by letter dated June 9, 2010 regarding a certified copy of the original Drugs/Alcohol subjective assessment by T.A. Patterson and a certified copy of all the questions used by Marguerite Campbell BSW to perform the subjective Drugs/Alcohol assessment. I immediately sought clarification. The materials you filed on August 24, 2010, suggest that this relates to Probation-ordered drug and alcohol counselling and that you viewed as offensive and part of a conspiracy to wrongly incriminate you. The Crown will not be obtaining this assessment and related questions as it is not relevant to your appeal.”

(Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Response to the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27th of January 2010, page 20)

PROBATION AND PAROLE POSITION:

[1343] It is readily apparent that Probation and Parole actions towards the Applicant are based on or appear to be based on the main charge of Information 07-02500 (count 1 D.W.I./DRUGS). Moreover, when the Applicant requested written articulated reasons and justification for T.A. PATTERSON’S DRUGS/ALCHOL assessment psychological evaluation, the Probation Officer’s reaction was to make the following statement; “Drugs and alcohol was involved”. The inference of the origin of this statement can only have its basis in GO 2007-70285 or Information 07-02500 or Information 07-02559).

[1344] Pursuant to Ms. Marguerite Campbell;

“This individual was charged with impaired driving in March 2007. He reported accusations of being under the influence of crack cocaine, dangerous driving arrest. Wayne strongly denied these charges and produced a report of drug tests that were taken on the day following his charge. The report showed the test results to be inconclusive. This is his only charge and he received one year of probation, which he is appealing.

Wayne stated that he never use d drugs.

Wayne described his alcohol use as casual, consuming one drink per sitting and a total of six sitting in the past year. He denied any problems related to his drinking and could not remember the last time he had a drank...”

( Marguerite Campbell, T.A. PATTERSON & ASSOCIATES INC., ASSESSMENT MEMORANDUM)

[1345] The main charge (count 1 D.W.I./DRUGS), persisted for much longer than a year in the York Regional Police Services data base or records. This was proving to be very destructive to the Applicant’s life and maintaining it concurrently with is defence. This is best described as a barrier to entry in seeking the ends of justice while not having full access to criminal judicial process. For example the Applicant was seeking more lucrative work in B.C. in the communication industry for Tellus as a subcontractor, for the purpose of accumulating funds to retain a lawyer. A criminal background check is essential for this type of work for obvious reasons. It was while this said background check was being conducted that the Applicant discovered that count: 1 D.W.I./DRUGS still persisted and was still active against the Applicant.

[1346] This goes a far way in criminally stigmatizing the Applicant, handicapping him and preventing him from returning back to normal living. Moreover, it even impedes restitution. For example the Applicant requested (year 2011), a copy of his personal records from the York Regional Police Services. The said records still point to and refer to driving with the influence of drugs.

“(1) Videotape of the Courthouse Cells;

(2) Personnel log of the officers on duty at the courthouse on March 28,

2007; and

(3) Courthouse records identifying the person you spoke to in the cells

about getting a drug test

It appears that you sought the videotape of the courthouse cells for the purpose of using it to identify the police officer who you asked for a drug test. It appears that your intention was to call this officer as a witness to confirm that you had indeed asked her for a drug test and were told it was not possible. It appears that you believe that evidence corroborating your account of this conversation would somehow bolster your credibility at trial and prove there were no drugs in your system. The video evidence, as you know, no longer exists. It appears that you did not request the personnel logs or courthouse records identifying the person working in the cells that day at any point during the trial or on the summary conviction appeal below. I do note, however, that there was no evidence contradicting your account of this conversation. Indeed, you got yourself tested for drug use that same day on your release and no drugs were detected in your system. It appears that lack of evidence (and evidence to the contrary, i.e. your drug test) was the basis for the Crown’s request that the impaired charge be withdrawn at the outset of the trial. Given that the impaired driving charge was withdrawn, this evidence, even if it existed, is not relevant to your trial on the other two counts.”

(Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Response to the Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27th of January 2010, page 18)

[1347] How else can this be described, other than a contravention of Section 7, an impedance of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[1348] Furthermore, keeping a person in a state of confusion about a charge and it status thereof (count: 1 D.W.I./DRUGS), is not in the Applicants an attempt at informing the Applicant of a charge in a meaningful way. this is a contravention of Section 11(a) with respect to the administration of count 1 D.W.I./DRUGS --s.253(a) c.c. and count 3 DANGEROUS DRIVING--s.249(2) c.c..

[1349] Hence the Applicant is alleging an abusing the process byway of retaining count: 1 D.W.I./DRUGS on Information 07-02500 for an unreasonable amount of time which diminishes the character and integrity of the Applicant and in contravention of Section 7 of the Charter. Moreover, the Applicant also allege that the Crown didn't inform the Applicant in a meaningful way of the new charge on Information 07-02559, and has contravened section 11(a) of the Charter.

“Content of an information or indictment.

Any person charged with an offence has the right to be informed of the specific offence without unreasonable delay (Charter, s. 11(a). Further, the accused must be reasonably informed of the transaction alleged against him, thus giving him the possibility of a full defence and a fair trial (R. v. Cote, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 8)...”

(POLICE OFFICERS MANUAL 2000, page 431)

[1350] How can the accused be informed in a meaningful was, if he is not disclosed a true copy of the Informations or if their is uncertainty and confusion surrounding the charges allege by the Information. Furthermore, if Section 11(a) and 7 of the Charter is breached then their should be a consideration of a violation of Section 15 of the Charter. Since Equity in legal services would have to be considered.

“Duplicity - The primary test for duplicity is “does the accused know the case he has to meet, or is he prejudiced in the preparation of his defence by ambiguity in the charge?”

{...}

Where an information is defective by reason of duplicity it is not null and void ab initio but is capable even after the expiry of a limitation period of being amended and resworn to cure the defect: R. v. Baldassara (1973), 11 C.C.C. (2d) 17 (Ont. H.C.J.).”

(MARTIN’S CRIMINAL CODE, 2009, page 1549)

Thus CASE 7: has been proved.

Therefore Section 7, Section 11(a), and Section 15 of the Charter apply with respect to the administration of the Informations and their respective allege charges.

CASE 8:

[1351] Is their some sort of inheritance between the lead information and the new information which links them is forming a dependence on validity? In short, does the validity of Information 07-02500 has a direct dependence on Information 07-02559?

[1352] Pursuant to R. v. Nagesu;

“[5] The form of the accused’s release, a promise to appear, was confirmed on the original information, an information which remains active and is before me, although it was not physically in court on the day this issue arose . The replacement information on which the crown proceeded alleges the exact same two offences. In such circumstances, further compliance with s.508 is unnecessary. Section 523(1.1) governs such situations.

[6] Section 523 (1.1) reads in part,

“ Where an accused, in respect of an offence with which he is charged...has been released ...by virtue of any provision of this Part and ....the ...promise to appear ...has been issued, given or entered into, [and] a new information charging the same offence, ...is received, section ...508...does not apply in respect of the new information ...”

[7] Given that the accused’s release was properly confirmed on the original information, it was unnecessary for the same release, which was deemed to continue in effect in regard to the replacement information, to be again confirmed by a justice of the peace.”

(R. v. Nagesu, 2009, ONCJ 401, page 1-2)

[1353] By virtue of 523(1.1) and it intentions within its legislative limitations. The new validity of the new Information is dependent on the validity of the old Information. Given that it has bypassed the legislative checks and balances of Section 505, 507, and 508 and relies on the process issued with respect to the lead Information since the new Information has not found a process of its own.

[1354] So by-virtue of the new Information necessary reliance on the lead Information through Section 523(1.1), it is self evident that it is inherent in this said link between the two concurrent active Information that the New Information inherits the properties of the Old information. In short, if it is the case Information 07-02500 has defects or it validity is in question, it fellows that Information 07-02559 validity would be in question? In the same fashion or by the same logic which is used in validating Information 07-02559 which has not found process.

[1355] Thus CASE 8: has been proven.

Therefore, their is an inheritance between the lead information and the new information by virtue of the inherent legislative properties Section 523(1.1), of which links them is forming a dependence on validity. In short, the validity of Information 07-02559 has a direct dependence on the validity of Information 07-02500.

FACE OF INFORMATION 07-02500

Please see page 109 to 149 under INFORMATION NO.: 07-02500 AND INFORMATION NO.: 07-02559 in APPLICANT’S FACTUM FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION(C51190).

[1356] In the Applicant’s humble opinion, the Informations disclosed to to the Applicant on August 13th 2009; are deceptive and miss leading. The Black’s Law Dictionary on page 360, defines a copy as;

“An imitation or reproduction of an original”

or a less stringent definition of, conform copy, is;

“ An exact copy of a document bearing written explanations of things that were not or could not be copied, such as a note on document indicating that it was signed by a person whose signature appears on the original.”

(Black’s Law Dictionary, page 360)

DISCLOSED COPY OF INFORMATION 07-02500:

CASE 9:

[1357] Is the disclosed copy of Information 07-02500 a true or partial copy? Information 07-02500 a valid Information?

[1358] The Applicant was disclosed a COPY of information 07-02500 on or about the 12^th of April 2007. Their is no informant name or signature listed. Likewise, there is no Justice of the peace name or confirmation signature.

Information 07-02500 was filed on

March 28, 2007, Informant Peace Officer B. Hird

count 1 D.W.I./DRUGS --s.253(a) c.c.

count 2 RESIST ARREST --s.129(a) c.c.

[1359] At the top left hand corner there is a typographical error of the accused name which is crossed out. The Information is not in compliance with FORM 2 and the Information is not worded in accordance with a person who does-not have personal knowledge of the allegations, the Applicant will attempt to describe it in the following way;

a) At the top left hand corner is typed “YORK REGIONAL POLICE OCC#: 07-70285”.

b) At the top left hand corner below “CENTRAL EAST” is a crossed out typographical error “(1) FERRON, wayne”

c) At the top right hand corner is typed “Police Case ID#: 3542 Inv. off.: 1079”

d) Their is no Information Number indicated on the document.

e) The Information of line is blank.

f) On the Informant occupation line is typed “REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK PEACE OFFICER”.

g) At the lover left corner is typed “Locked Down Date: March 28, 2007 09:19 AM.”

h) On the last page, at the top left hand corner is typed “TOWN ...NEWMARKET ...28th ...MARCH ...2007”

i) The line for the Informant is blank.

j) The line for the Justice of the Peace and the date is blank.

k) The Appearance Notice box, Promise to Appear box, Recognizance box, and the Confirmed on box along with the line for date and Justice of the Peace are all unchecked or blank.

[1360] The copy of information 07-02500 disclosed to the Applicant before the commencement of the trial, did-not contain the name or names of the informant. The Applicant was never disclosed the informant’s, Officer’s notes from his memorandum notebook, even-though he requested for all officers present for GO 2007-70285 notes to be disclosed to him. The informant was never contact informations was never disclosed, the informants was never called or examined in Chief by the Crown. Hence, the Applicant was never given the opportunity to exercise his rights to cross examine the informant and their information.

[1361] Furthermore; since the disclosed copy of information 07-02500, was sterile of the informant’s name and Badge number. The Applicant lacked the necessary and sufficient information to call and examine the informant with respect to his sworn information of reasonable belief.

CERTIFIED COPY OF INFORMATION 07-02500:

[1362] On the Applicant’s certified COPY of Information 07-02500, obtained from the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar. The Informant’s name on the front of the information is B. HIRD and the Informant’s signature appears to be BALTAL , which could be wrong but it is very different from the printed name. The Applicant have requested that the Informants name and badge number be disclosed to me from the Crown’s office, but the have refused to disclosed. The Applicant have requested that the Informants name and badge number be disclosed to me from the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES OFFICE, but the Officer receptionist was incapable of finding it.

[1363] Their is a Justice of the Peace commission signature present for the commissioned date of 28^th of March 2007.

[1364] At the top left hand corner there is no typographical error of the accused name which is crossed out. The Information does not conform to FORM 2 and the Information is not worded in accordance with a person who does-not have personal knowledge of the allegations. The Applicant will try to describe the said document in the following way:

a) At the top left hand corner is typed “YORK REGIONAL POLICE OCC#: 07-70285”.

b) At the top left hand corner below “CENTRAL EAST” their is not a crossed out typographical error “(1) FERRON, wayne”

c) At the top right hand corner is typed “Police Case ID#: 3542 Inv. off.: 1079”

d) On the Information of line is written in block letters “B. HIRD”

e) On the Informant occupation line is typed “REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK PEACE OFFICER”.

f) O the top right hand corner, the Information Number is indicated “07 02500”.

g) At the lover left corner is typed “Locked Down Date: March 28, 2007 09:19 AM.”

h) On the last page, at the top left hand corner is typed “TOWN ...NEWMARKET ...28th ...MARCH ...2007”

i) On the last page on the Informant line is signed “Baltal”. It is a signature which appears to be different from the written name, the Applicant could be wrong.

j) The line for the Justice of the Peace is signed, however their is no date for the signature.

k) The Appearance Notice box, Promise to Appear box, Recognizance box, and the Confirmed on box along with the line for date and Justice of the Peace are all unchecked or blank.

[1365] Accordingly, the face of the Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559 indicates that it is sworn by a Justice of the Peace, but the section that provides for the confirmation of appearance notice, promise to appear, recognizance by the Justice of the Peace is completely blank.

[1366] Pursuant to DAWSON, J., who granted the defence application and quash the information in R. v. Ladouceur, 2010 ONCJ 587;

“The defence makes application prior to arraignment and plea for the information to be quashed due to non-compliance with s.508 of the Criminal Code. Section 508 of the Criminal Code states, 508(1):

A justice who receives an information laid before him under section 505 shall

(a) hear and consider, ex parte,

(i) the allegations of the informant, and

(ii) the evidence of witnesses, where he considers it desirable or necessary to do so;

(b) where he considers that a case for so doing is made out, whether the information relates to the offence alleged in the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance or to an included or other offence,

(i) confirm the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and endorse the information accordingly, or

(ii) cancel the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and issue, in accordance with section 507, either a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel the accused to attend before him or some other justice for the same territorial division to answer to a charge of an offence and endorse on the summons or warrant that the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, has been cancelled; and

(c) where he considers that a case is not made out for the purposes of paragraph (b), cancel the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and cause the accused to be notified forthwith of such cancellation.

{...}

There is conflicting authority from the Superior Court of Justice summary conviction appeal level. In R. v. Smith, [2008] O.J. 381, the court held that the trial judge was obligated or obliged to quash an information for non-compliance with s.508(1)(b)(i). There was no indication on the face of the information that the process compelling the defendant to appear was ever confirmed by a justice in that case.”

(R. v. Ladouceur, 2010 ONCJ 587, page 1-4)

[1367] It should be noted that although Information 07-02500 does not indicate a presence of a RECOGNIZANCE OF BAIL or a confirmation Justice of the Peace signature, their was one issued;

RECOGNIZANCE OF BAIL 07-02500 was entered into on

March 28, 2007, Presiding Judge was the Honourable Justice B. Norton

count 1: D.W.I./DRUGS--s.253(a) c.c.

count 2: RESIST ARREST--s.129(a) c.c.

condition 1: Reside at 91 Natanya Bv. Keswick Ont. L4P 3P7

condition 2: Notify Officer BROUGHTON, Badge# 1079 ...48 hours ...change

[1368] In the Applicant’s humble opinion, the Informations disclosed to to the Applicant on August 13th 2009; are deceptive and miss leading. The Black’s Law Dictionary on page 360, defines a copy as;

“An imitation or reproduction of an original”

or a less stringent definition of, conform copy, is;

(Black’s Law Dictionary, page 360)

[1369] Thus CASE 9: has been proven.

Therefore the disclosed copy of Information 07-02500 is not a true copy by the definition of the Blacks Law Dictionary.

FACE OF INFORMATION 07-02559

CASE 10:

[1370] Is the disclosed copy of Information 07-02559 a true or partial copy?

DISCLOSED COPY OF INFORMATION 07-02559:

[1371] The copy of Information 07-02559 disclosed to the Applicant on or about 13^th of April 2007, before the commencement of the trial. Did-not contain the name of the informant. The Applicant was never disclosed Officer’s Notes from the informant’s memorandum notebook, even-though he requested for all Officers present for GO 2007-70285 Notes to be disclosed to him. The informant was never called or examined in chief by the Crown. Hence, the Applicant was never given the opportunity to exercise his rights to cross examine the informant and his Information.

[1371] Furthermore; since the disclosed copy of information 07-02559, was sterile of the informant’s and Justice of the peace names. The Applicant lacked the necessary and sufficient information to call and examine the informant with respect to his sworn information of reasonable belief.

[1372] At the top left hand corner, there is no typographical error of the accused name which is crossed out. The Information is not in compliance with FORM 2 and the information is not worded in accordance with a person who does-not have personal knowledge of the allegations. The Applicant will try to describe the said Information in the following way;

a) At the top left hand corner is typed “YORK REGIONAL POLICE OCC#: 07-70285”.

b) At the top left hand corner below “CENTRAL EAST” is a crossed out typographical error “(1) FERRON, wayne”

c) At the top center is written in block letters “REPLACEMENT”.

d) At the top right hand corner is typed “Police Case ID#: 3542 Inv. off.: 1079”

e) Their is no Information Number indicated on the document.

f) The Information of line is blank.

g) On the Informant occupation line is typed “REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK PEACE OFFICER”.

h) At the lover left corner is typed “Locked Down Date: March 29, 2007 09:13 AM.”

i) On the last page, at the top left hand corner is typed “TOWN ...NEWMARKET ...28th ...MARCH ...2007”

j) The line for the Informant is blank.

k) The line for the Justice of the Peace and the date is blank.

l) The Appearance Notice box, Promise to Appear box, Recognizance box, and the Confirmed on box along with the line for date and Justice of the Peace are all unchecked or blank.

CERTIFIED COPY OF INFORMATION 07-02559:

[1373] The Applicant’s certified COPY of information 07-02559, obtained from the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar indicated 3 counts.

Information 07-02559 was filed on

March 29, 2007, by informant Peace Officer Joe Willmets.

count 1 D.W.I./DRUGS --s.253(a) c.c.

count 2 RESIST ARREST --s.129(a) c.c.

count 3 DANGEROUS DRIVING--s.249(2)

[1374] The informant’s name on the front of the information is JOE WILLMETS and the informant’s signature is JOE WILLMETS. The Justice of the Peace signature is present for the confirmation date of 29^th of March 2007.

a) At the top left hand corner is typed “YORK REGIONAL POLICE OCC#: 07-70285”.

b) At the top left hand corner below “CENTRAL EAST” their is not a crossed out typographical error “(1) FERRON, wayne”

c) At the top center is written in block letters “REPLACEMENT”.

d) At the top right hand corner is typed “Police Case ID#: 3542 Inv. off.: 1079”

e) On the Information of line is written in block letters “Joe Willmets”

f) On the Informant occupation line is typed “REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK PEACE OFFICER”.

g) On the top right hand corner, the Information Number is indicated as “07 02559”.

h) At the lover left corner is typed “Locked Down Date: March 28, 2007 09:13 AM.”

i) On the second to last page, at the left hand corner is written in hand writing “ ...29th ...MARCH ...2007”

j) On the second to last page, on the Informant line is signed by the Informant.

k) The line for the Justice of the Peace is signed, however their is no date for the signature.

l) The Appearance Notice box, Promise to Appear box, Recognizance box, and the Confirmed on box along with the line for date and Justice of the Peace are all unchecked or blank.

[1375] Accordingly, the face of the Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559 indicates that it is sworn by a Justice of the Peace, but the section that provides for the confirmation of appearance notice, promise to appear, recognizance by the Justice of the Peace is completely blank.

[1376] Pursuant to DAWSON, J., who granted the defence application and quash the information in R. v. Ladouceur, 2010 ONCJ 587;

A justice who receives an information laid before him under section 505 shall

(a) hear and consider, ex parte,

(i) the allegations of the informant, and

(ii) the evidence of witnesses, where he considers it desirable or necessary to do so;

(i) confirm the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and endorse the information accordingly, or

{...}

(R. v. Ladouceur, 2010 ONCJ 587, page 1-4)

[1377] In the Applicant’s humble opinion, the Informations disclosed to to the Applicant on August 13th 2009; are deceptive and miss leading. The Black’s Law Dictionary on page 360, defines a copy as;

“An imitation or reproduction of an original”

or a less stringent definition of, conform copy, is;

(Black’s Law Dictionary, page 360)

[1378] Thus CASE 10: has been proven.

Therefore the disclosed copy of Information 07-02559 is not a true copy by the definition of the Blacks Law Dictionary.

CASE 11:

[1379] Is Information 07-02500 a valid Information?

[1380] In CASE 9: it was shown that there was a significant amount of confusion surrounding the two concurrently active Informations and the Crown had failed to disclose proper copies of these information in a timely fashion.

[1381] In CASE 10: it was shown that the copies of Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559 were not valid copied of the filed information according to the definition of the word copy. In addition to the aforementioned, the Applicant had no personal knowledge of the respective informants filing Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559.

[1382] Moreover, the Applicant has no recollected personal knowledge that B. HIRD or BALTAL or whatever his name and badge number may be, was ever present for GO 2007-70285. The Applicant does not believe he knows who the said Police Informant is, he does not know the said Informant’s badge number, nor does he believe he personally has ever met the said Peace Officers. Furthermore, he has been refused the said Informant’s identification for Information 07-02550, particularly name and Badge number on many occasions.

[1383] Likewise, the Applicant have no recollected personal knowledge that JOE WILLMETS (974) was ever present for GO 2007-70285. He does not believe he knows who the said Informant is or have ever met JOE WILLMETS (974) before. Furthermore, he has been refused a conformation of the said Informant’s Identification and a disclosure of the Informants note for Information 07-02559 on many occasions.

[1384] The aforementioned matter concerning the Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559, infers a high probability that both Informations contains false oaths and are rendered null and void by way of a defective jurat.

[1385] Pursuant to Ms. Joanne Stuart, Crown’s council at the court of Appeal for Ontario after her 9 Months intensive investigation into R. V. Wayne Ferron(C51190);

“(5) The identity of the informant for Information 07-02500; and

(6) The identity of the informant for Information 07-02559

This appears to relate either to your concern about the impaired charge not being withdrawn at an earlier stage or to some sort of allegation of perjury on the part of the officer who swore the original Information and the officer who swore the amended replacement Information. This task is strictly clerical and based on information provided by the investigating officers. These affiants would not be in a position to provide any relevant information on the issue of the withdrawal of the impaired charge. As for perjury, your accusation is serious and, I believe, seriously misguided. I urge you to speak to duty counsel to get advice about this issue as it is incomprehensible the way you have articulated it in your materials. In any event, this is a fresh evidence request, one that was denied by Justice Boswell at the summary conviction appeal level, and it is not relevant to this appeal, which relates only to the dangerous driving and resist peace officer convictions. It is the Crown’s position that you are requesting irrelevant information and therefore will not obtain this disclosure for you. “

(Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Response to t he Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27th of January 2010, page 18-19)

TAKE NOTICE: What is of interest to the Applicant is the Crown’s council’s bold assertion; “... This task is strictly clerical and based on information provided by the investigating officers. These affiants would not be in a position to provide any relevant information...”

[1386] Clerical in the Applicants unprofessional legal opinion infers arbitrary action. For example, the content of whatever package of information being process has no personal meaning or significants to the Clerk. All that matters is that a pre constructed or assembled package of action within a process are applied. Any qualified Clerk could successfully complete these action within a given process, no personal knowledge or personal belief is required. Hence, no positive Oath on personal belief on the truthfulness of the contents of the package being processed. Thus their is no signing of a jurat or placing the said package before a Justice of the Peace to issue process.

[1387] In-fact, a soulless machine void of belied could be programed to complete the package of actions within a given process with a developed set of instructions. The important theme here is no reasonable belief or faith is required to accomplish a Clerical task. Thus a clerical task is arbitrary in the Applicants humble view.

[1388] This notion set forward by the Crown, of the filing of the Information combined with the the taking of an oath by the Informant to certify his reasonable belief in the truthfulness of the contents of the Information being reduced or degraded to just a clerical action strike me as having a total disregard for the importance and purpose of the Informations, within the meaning of Section 505, 507 or 508 of the C.C., when the full force of the Administration of Justice is brought to bear on an accused person. The Applicant’s life, his children's lives, and Canadian’s lives are more than a clerical action, much more! This notion put forward by the Crown, I find personally offensive when view in the context of human worth and human dignity.

“CLERICAL ERROR immediately correctable mistake resulting from the copying or transmission of legal documents. As opposed to a judicial error, a clerical error is not made in the exercise of judgement or discretion, but is made by a mechanical or other inadvertence. A clerical error is know by the character of the error, and is not dependent on who makes the error, be it clerk or judge.”

(BARRON’S LAW DICTIONARY fifth Edition, page 82)

[1389] The Crown’s notion of the filing of an information being “ strictly clerical”, spawns many questions;

• can a clerk make a clerical error of reasonable belief?

• is taking an oath a clerical function?

• is their such a beast as clerical oath?

• is a given clerical oath of reasonable belief with respect to the clerks statement of truthfulness or is it in regards to another person’s allegations?

[1390] Pursuant to POLICE OFFICERS MANUAL 2000, belief involves knowledge, probable knowledge of consequences.

BELIEF:

“More than acceptance, and involves knowledge, probably knowledge of consequences (R.v. Budin (1981), 58 C.C.C. (2D) 352 (ONT. C. A.))”

(POLICE OFFICERS MANUAL 2000, page 100)

[1391] So, when a person takes an oath of reasonable belief that the allegation within an information are true their is a consequence of perjury for being engaged in a negative oath. But how does one swear a positive oath to someone else allegation and statement of truth. Furthermore, effect an oath to an officers statement whose credibility and investigation are in question.

Reasonable Grounds:

“In General, reasonable grounds are grounds that would lead an ordinary, prudent, and cautious person to have a strong and honest belief about the situation at issue.”

(CRIMINAL LAW and the CANADIAN CRIMINAL CODE, Third Edition, page 405)

[1392] Did the Informants first vet Officer Broughton’s invoice for truthfulness and examine DC Stribbell’s and DCst Broughton investigative papers for truthfulness or read the relevant Officers notes. How did the Informants arrive at their reasonable belief and how did they justify it?

Oath:

“A solemn declaration, accompanied by a swearing to God or a revered person or thing, that one’s statement is true or that one will be bound to a promise. The person making the oath implicitly invites punishment if the statement is untrue or the promise is broken.”

(BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, Eight Edition, page 1101)

[1393] Recall that in 5.)UNLAWFUL WARRANTLESS ARREST, it was shown that the Officers arrived at their reasonable objective belief in the investigation byway of legal fraud and 4.)BIAS OR REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS, it was shown that DC Burd(1075), DC Stribbell(529), DCst Broughton(1079) and P.C. Monk(1399) that they were not only wanting of credibility, but they were also perverting the course of justice. So by the “ fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine” how is it possible to arrive at a reasonable belief in the information via a positive Oath without taking into consideration the tainting or poisoning of the process? Why didn’t DCst Broughton or DC Stribbell take an oath of reasonable belief pertaining to the truthfulness of the statements in the Informations which were based on his prudent invoice and DC Stribbell’s professional investigation?

[1394] Thus, the Applicant fail to see how their can be any personal belief in the Oath taken by the Informants for Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559. In this context, the Applicant concede and concur with the Crown that the filing and swearing of the original information and the replacement information was “...strictly clerical and based on information provided by the investigating officers.” How many clerks take an oath of consequence to certify the truthfulness or integrity for statements or legal documents not of their own making.

[1395] During the cross examination of many officers the statement which was continually repeated to avoid answering certain questions was, “Once again, I can't comment on what other officers did if I didn't notice it.”, according to Officer Monk.

“In R. v. Fletcher reflex, (1983) 1 C.C.C. (3d) 370, the Ontario Court of Appeal adopted the reasoning of Brooke J.A. rather than that of the majority in Budin. MacKinnon A.C.J.O. said at p. 376-377:

{...}

[6] We respectfully adopt the reasoning of MacKinnon A.C.J.O. in Fletcher and it therefore follows that a child of tender years who after inquiry is found to “have a sense of moral obligation to tell the truth on taking the oath” and “feels her “conscience bound by it” can be affirmed under s. 15 of the Canada Evidence Act.”

(R. v. Conners, 1986 ABCA 147)

[1396] So, when one is taking an oat, whose statement is being certified to be true. Who own the allegations! It would seem according to the BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, that the statement at issue belongs to and is owned by the person making the oath. This would infers that in an affidavit, the voluntary declaration of facts written down, and sworn belongs to, and is claimed by the person taking the oath.

Affidavit:

“A voluntary declaration of facts written down and sworn by the declarant before an officer authorized to administer oaths, such as a notary public”

(BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, Eight Edition, page 62)

[1397] Similarly, the person taking the oath to certify the truthfulness of the statements within an Information is the person who owns or is responsible for the statement of truth. But, this person would be the Informant. So, if their is no fallacy in the logic, the Informant owns the statements he is swearing an oath to or at the minimum, he has some sort of link to or relationship of proximity to the construction or creation of the statements of allegations in the Information. Which would infer their is some sort of connection to the witnesses or events, excluding a hearsay relationship or link to the n^th degree.

[1398] Recall that the Informant is lending is credibility, his integrity, his reasonable belief in certifying the allegations to be truthful in the information to which there is consequence if the oath is found to be faulty. To which their is consequence if he is misleading the Justice of the Peace. To which their is consequence if he is taking improper advantage of his position of authority and a Judicial Officer. Again, the Applicant fail to see how a task which carries this much responsibility could possible be “...strictly clerical”.

“Information alleging the commission of a summary conviction offence. Summary conviction proceedings must be commenced by laying an information in Form 2 (s. 788(1)(b)). The information must be in writing and under oath (s. 789(1)(a))

{...}

Laid before a justice. “Laid” means that the written complaint was sworn before a justice (R. V. Southwick (1967), C.R.N.S. 46 (Ont. C. A.)).

{...}

The informant says that (if the informant has no personal knowledge state that he believes on reasonable ground and state the offence).”

(POLICE OFFICERS MANUAL 2000, page 100)

[1399] So the written statements of allegations in the Information along with the oath both belong to and is own by the Informant in accordance with Form 2 -- Information (section 506 and 788).

[1400] Pursuant to the BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY definition of jurat, the signer of the jurat swore to or affirmed the contents of the document. Which infers that the Informant is excepting responsibility for the truthfulness of the Information.

Jurat:

“A certification added to an affidavit or deposition stating when and before what authority the affidavit or deposition was made. A jurat typically says “Subscribed and sworn to before me this ...... day of [month], [year],” and the officer (usu. a notary public) thereby certifies three things:

(1) that the person signing the document did so in the officer’s presence, (2) that the signer appeared before the officer on the date indicated, and (3) that the officer administered an oath or to the signer, who swore to or affirmed the contents of the document.”

(BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, Eight Edition, page 866)

[1401] No references to the Informant B. Hird, for Information 07-02500 can be found in any of the disclosed investigative papers or the Officers notes. Moreover, he was never called or examined in chief. Furthermore, is Identity (name and badge number), has not been disclosed on many request. The Applicant is made to believe that this Officers Operate in the shadows so to speak. This Officer, if he exist is a mystery, and exist in the shadows like a phantom.

“Belief of informant - Failure of the informant, who did not have personal knowledge of the alleged offence, to employ the alternative phrase “reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe” in his information constitutes a failure to comply with the Code and in the absence of the appropriate amendment before the evidence was herd, the conviction must be quashed: R. v. Lepage, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 187, 4 C.R.N.S. 61 (Ont. H.C.J.).

The word “oath” includes a solemn affirmation. Accordingly, an information which is affirmed is valid: R. v. Netley, [1983] 5 W.W.R. 508 (B.C.S.C.).

There must not be a wilful disregard of the of the statutory requirements of laying an in formation; there need only be reasonable compliance with those provisions. Accordingly, where the informant’s belief was conclusive within the bounds of reasonableness an information sworn on positive, rather than reasonable and probable grounds, was upheld: R. v. McGuffey (1992), 17 C.R.N.S. 393, [1972] 2 W.W.R. 462 (Sask. Dist. Ct)”

(MARTIN’S CRIMINAL CODE, 2009, page 1548)

[1402] In the Applicant’s respectful view, Informant B. Hird had no personal know of GO# 2007-70285 nor did he have any personal interaction with the Applicant, and the disclosed information of the said matter does not indicate that he had personal contact with the complainant; yet he swore a positive oath on Information 07-02500 when he “Laid” the said information before a Justice of the Peace.

[1403] The following short summary of facts is an illustration of the mad rush to investigate the matter before the court after the Applicant was charged, arrested, and an Information “laid” before a Justice of the Peace by B. Hird, the Informant for Information 02500. In the Applicant’s humble view, the investigation should precede the charge, arrest, and filing of the information. It would seem that the investigation for supporting evidence proceed the “Laid” information before a Justice of the Peace. This is all taking place after the Officers refused or was incapable of taking a statement from the complainant, even though they had personal contact with him for 20 Minutes before the arrest.

MAD RUSH TO INVESTIGATE GO# 2007-70285:

[1404] Officer Stribbell’s (529) entered notes into the SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT between 5:00 AM and 7:45 AM on the 28^th of March 2007. In this same interval he enters into is notes that the Applicant used crack cocaine in the past.

[1405] Asper GO 2007-70285 FOLLOW UP REPORT# 2, on 07March28 at 13:57; Officer Stribbell (#529) states;

“task D/C Needler #523 and D/C Willmets #974 to get a hold of witness and take statement”

(GO 2007-70285 FOLLOW UP REPORT #2; TAB 18, on 07March28 at 13:57)

[1406] Asper GO 07-70285 FOLLOW UP REPORT# 3, on 07March28 at 21:02; #87 Wihce, Robert John;

“contacted -witness, Geoffrey Fardy via phone - he has already prepared a written statement - copy e-mailed to Wiche and copy to alpha file - signed copy to be picked up by uniform”

(GO 07-70285 FOLLOW UP REPORT# 3; TAB 19, on 07March28 at 21:02)

[1407] Asper GO 07-70285 FOLLOW UP REPORT# 5, on 07March29 at 07:12;

“prosecution Summary updated to add a charge of Dangerous Operation. Replacement information and copy of civilian witness statement sent to court. ”

(GO 2007-70285 FOLLOW UP REPORT# 5; TAB 19, on 07March29 at 07:12)

[1408] On the 29^th of March 2007, DCst Broughton filed REQUEST FOR RECORDED VOICE COMMUNICATIONS G0# 2007-70285 for:YRP222; ASAP; investigation for the purpose of laying charges; type of incident impaired.

Please see 4.) BIAS or REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS, under the heading OFFICER STRIBBELL (#529)/CREDIBILITY and OFFICER BROUGHTON (#1079)/CREDIBILITY in APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION (C51190)

[1409] Given that the applicant analysis is correct, how can the Oath given by an Officer Informant operating in the shadows, and is based on Officer Broughton’s Invoice and Officer Stribbell’s Investigation, and is a mere arbitrary administrative activity possible be a none faulty positive Oath?

[1410] DC Stribbell(529); is the Officer tasked to investigate GO 2007-70285. It is his name and DCst Broughton’s name, which grace most of the GO 2007-70285 investigative documents. Moreover the investigative documents or task by these two Officers, processed by these two Officers and approved by these two Officers. Yet for the aforementioned reasons DCst Brougton(1079) and DC Stribbell (529) are wanting of credibility. The Applicant has shown these officers to be liars and at the minimum perverting and colouring the course of justice.

[1411] For the aforementioned reasons and the arguments in 4.) BIAS or REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS, under the heading OFFICER STRIBBELL (#529)/CREDIBILITY and OFFICER BROUGHTON (#1079)/CREDIBILITY in APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION (C51190). And in addition to the UNLAWFUL WARRANTLESS ARREST, brings into play, “fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine”!

FRUIT-OF-THE-POISONOUS-TREE DOCTRINE

“fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. Criminal procedure. The rule that evidence derived from an illegal search, arrest, or interrogation is inadmissible because the evidence (the “fruit”) was tainted by the illegality (the “poisonous tree”).

(Blacks Law Dictionary, page 693)

[1412] Pursuant to Ms. Joanne Stuart’s (Crown’s council) prudent investigation of C51190 that the Oath for Information 07-02500 was in her words;

“(5) The identity of the informant for Information 07-02500; and

(6) The identity of the informant for Information 07-02559

This appears to relate either to your concern about the impaired charge not being withdrawn at an earlier stage or to some sort of allegation of perjury on the part of the officer who swore the original Information and the officer who swore the amended replacement Information. This task is strictly clerical and based on information provided by the investigating officers. These affiants would not be in a position to provide any relevant information on the issue of the withdrawal of the impaired charge.”

(Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Response to t he Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010, page 18-19)

[1413] Basing an information on an Officers invoice that is highly suspect, and swearing a positive oath with personal belief on the truthfulness of the allegations in Information 07-02500 without any personal knowledge of the events surrounding the allegations, strike me as a Blatant disregard for the process and the reputation of the Administration of justice. Furthermore, the oath taken in this actionable wrong can only be characterized as a false oath which constitute perjury and renders Information 07-02500 voidable in the Applicant’s humble opinion.

False Oath/Perjury:

“The act or an instance of a person’s deliberately making material false or misleading statements while under oath.”

(BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, Eight Edition, page 1175)

[1414] Pursuant to R. V. Lepage,

“...Section 654 of the Criminal Code provides

that 'anyone who upon reasonable or probable grounds

believes that any person has committed an indictable of-

fence may make a complaint or lay an information in writing

under oath.' If the reasonable or probable grounds for

believing that an offence has been committed are anything

less than the actual knoWledge of an eye-witness the infor-

mation should be worded accordingly. At least the same

care should be taken in this matter as is taken every day in

the preparation of affidavits in civil actions."

(R. V. Lepage, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 187, 4 C.R.N.S.61, page 190)

[1415] In the absent of any evidence to the contrary, B. Hird possessed no personal knowledge with respect to GO 2007-70285 or C51190. B. Hird took an oath in the positive, when he should have sworn “ reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe”. Furthermore, he certified with is “reasonable belief” the statement within the information that was not of his own construction, but belong to DC Stribbell and relied on tainted evidence in the form of an invoice belonging to DCst Broughton, who is in want of credibility.

“Belief of informant - Failure of the informant, who did not have personal knowledge of the alleged offence, to employ the alternative phrase “reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe” in his information constitutes a failure to comply with the Code and in the absence of the appropriate amendment before the evidence was herd, the conviction must be quashed: R. v. Lepage, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 187, 4 C.R.N.S. 61 (Ont. H.C.J.).”

(MARTIN’S CRIMINAL CODE, 2009, page 1548)

[1416] Thus CASE 11: is proven.

Therefore, Information 07-02500 a not a valid Information.

CASE 12:

[1417] Did the Presiding Trial Judge have jurisdiction over the Applicant?

[1418] Pursuant to HMTQ v. McCarthy, the Presiding Trial Judge had jurisdiction over the Applicant. By virtue of the Applicant appearing in Court to answer the charges.

[1419] Thus CASE 12: has been proven.

Therefore, the Presiding Trial Judge had jurisdiction over the Applicant.

CASE 13:

[1420] Did the Presiding Trial Judge have jurisdiction over the allege charges against the Applicant in Information 07-02559?

[1421] Pursuant to CASE 11:, Information 07-02500 is not a vilid information and is therefore voidable.

Attorney General may direct stay

Recommencement of proceedings

(2) Proceedings stayed in accordance with subsection (1) may be recommenced, without laying a new information or preferring a new indictment, as the case may be, by the Attorney General or counsel instructed by him for that purpose giving notice of the recommencement to the clerk of the court in which the stay of the proceedings was entered, but where no such notice is given within one year after the entry of the stay of proceedings, or before the expiration of the time within which the proceedings could have been commenced, whichever is the earlier, the proceedings shall be deemed never to have been commenced.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 579; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 117

[1422] The Crown has laws and legal instruments at it disposal to amend a defective information, but it chose not to do so. The Crown arraigned the Applicant and proceeded with the trial without any repairs or amendments to its information.

“Belief of informant - Failure of the informant, who did not have personal knowledge of the alleged offence, to employ the alternative phrase “reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe” in his information constitutes a failure to comply with the Code and in the absence of the appropriate amendment before the evidence was herd, the conviction must be quashed: R. v. Lepage, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 187, 4 C.R.N.S. 61 (Ont. H.C.J.).”

(MARTIN’S CRIMINAL CODE, 2009, page 1548)

[1423] Absent of amendments to cure defects in the Information 07-02500 became null and void, incapable of giving to the Presiding Judge Jurisdiction over the allege charges on the commencement of the Trial or the arraignment of the applicant.

[1424] Pursuant to R. V. McGuffey;

"I should like to make some comment on the form of the

information taken in this case. Both defendants testify that

at the time the information was taken it was distinctly stated

and understood that Dunning had no personal knowledge of

the circumstances. Yet he takes and is allowed to take a posi-

tive oath that the offence was committed, and Mr. Brown, the

police magistrate made the somewhat startling statement that

he would always take an information in that form from a

'reputable man' although he knew that the informant could

only swear to information and belief. This in my opinion is

a most reprehensible practice and should not be continued.

Section 654 of the Criminal Code provides that 'anyone who

upon reasonable or probable grounds believes that any person

has committed an indictable offence may make a complaint

or lay an information in writing under oath.' If the reason-

able or probable grounds for believing that an offence has been

committed are anything less than the actual knowledge of an

eye-witness the information should be worded accordingly. At

least the same care should be taken in this matter as is taken

every day in the preparation of affidavits in civil actions." ...

... "I observe it is obvious that Parliament intended that the

appropriate wording should be used in drafting an informa-

tion. It appears from the stated case, however, that there

was a wilful disregard of the requirements of the statute and

that the Crown counsel did not take advantage of the oppor-

tunity to have the information amended before the charge

was heard. It is my view that the forms prescribed by the

statute should be followed, if not exactly at least as reason-

ably close as possible in the circumstances in any given case.

In this particular case there has been a failure to comply

reasonably with the provisions of the statute . . . "

(R. V. McGuffey (1972), 17 C.R.N.S. 393, [1972] 2 W.W.R. 462, page 465)

[1425] Pursuant to Section 523(1.1) of the C.C., there is no process for Information 07-02559 to rely on, since Section 505 and 508 was bypassed and Information 07-02500 is a nullity. So, there was no process for Information 07-02559 to rely on. There, absent of process information 07-02559 also became a nullity.

[1426] Accordingly, the face of the Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559 indicates that it is sworn by a Justice of the Peace, but the section that provides for the confirmation of appearance notice, promise to appear, recognizance by the Justice of the Peace is completely blank.

[1427] A prudent check of Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559 will show and confirm that both these Information are non compliant with Section 508 of the Criminal Code.

“At paragraph 10, the Court in Southam Inc. v. Coulter states:

It seems to me to follow from the proposition that a prosecution commences only after a justice of the peace has decided to issue process that until that decision is made there is no "accused" within the meaning of s.486(1) of the Code, with the result that the judicial officer's discretion to exclude the public comes into existence in proceedings that occur only after a decision has been made to issue process.

These comments by the Supreme Court of Canada, although not directly on point, give support to the acceptance of the Gougeon and Smith line of authority. If there is no confirmation of the process under s.508 of the Criminal Code, when there is required to be, there is no judicial determination that the information is valid, which is an essential step in the prosecution.”

(R. v. Ladouceur, 2010 ONCJ 587, page 14)

[1428] Pursuant Section 508, Information 07-02500 is a nullity.

[1429] Pursuant Section 508, Information 07-02559 is a nullity even if Section 523(1.1) was to apply.

[1430] It was shown that the oath for Information 07-02500 was a nullity.

[1431] Hence, their is no valid Information which is before this Honourable Court for C51190, similarly their was never a valid Information before the lower courts. The Applicant try to bring this issue forward in is Application for fresh evidence before the Honoured Justice Boswell, but his efforts to obtain evidence to prove this was successfully argued against by Crown counsel, Mr. Tait. This forces the Question, did the Crown know that both Information were defective?

[1432] Thus CASE 13: is proven.

Therefore, the Presiding Trial Judge did-not have jurisdiction over the allege charges against the Applicant in Information 07-02559 or Information 07-02500.

CASE 14:

[1433] Does excluding Information 07-02500 from the Appellate process and the C51190 prejudice the matter before the Court against the Applicant?

[1434] A major defect in the jurat, rendered the Informations 07-02500 and 07-02559 null and void; and is incapable of founding jurisdiction to give the court jurisdiction over their alleged allegation.

[1435] The informants for both informations were-not at any of the hearings, to give evidence; to be examined by the prosecutor, justice or cross examined by the defendant to cure the defects in the jurat and rescue the information.

[1436] There was no motion by the Crown to amend the replacement information with leave of the court. Even though over 9 months had passed before the start of the trial wherein Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559 defects could have been remedied. That is 9 months after the GO 2007-70285 and 9 months after the RECOGNIZANCE was entered into for Information 07-02500, their was no motion or application to remedy defects.

[1437] The mere fact that that two information exist from the second day(March 29, 2007), to the Judgement conviction (September 26, 2008), breeds doubt and uncertainty into the reasonable objective belief of the Informants for the respective Information and into the reasonable belief of the Prosecution with respect to the matter before the court. the effect from this fact is Apparent in the confusion surrounding both concurrently active Informations.

[1438] Furthermore, this said confusion made its way into the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO and is apparent in the errors of fact in the Crown’s counsel(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s), 22 page report from her 9 months investigation into the matter before this Honourable Court.

[1439] If the Informants are not certain about their course of action to meet the ends of justice and the Prosecution is not certain about their course of action to meet the ends of justice. Why should the Bench and the public believe in the Informations statements of allegations.

[1440] The Crown is in denial about March 28, 2007, the date that Information 07-02550 “Laid” before a Justice. The Crown position appears to be, that Information 07-02500 is irrelevant. But how can it be void of importance if Information 07-02559 was dependent upon the process issue with respect to Information 07-02500.

[1441] Which begs the question, if your argument for merits is based on a defect in the process or administrative procedure, and Information 07-02559 was prosecuted using the process issued to Information 07-02500., how can one deal fairly and judiciously with the issue if Information 07-02500 is ignored and not place before the Appellate process?

[1442] When the Applicant was appealing to the Superior Court of Justice, he was instructed not to put both information number on the form because Information 07-02500 was withdrawn. Hence, their was only a need to Appeal Information 07-02559. Hence, take note of the Crown’s apparent confusion in the following citations.

“1. March 28, 2007 was not listed as an appearance date (I note that this was the date of your arrest and the Information was not sworn until March 29, 2007);

2. March 30, 2007 was listed;

{...}

(Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Letter to the Applicant on 14^th of May 2010, page 3)

[1443] Pursuant to Ms. Joanne Stuart;

“(5) The identity of the informant for Information 07-02500; and

(6) The identity of the informant for Information 07-02559

(Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Response to t he Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27^th of January 2010, page 18-19)

[1444] It is inherently unfair to judge a financially destitute, unrepresented lay person who has been denied legal Aid, bankrupt, indigent, and is forced to conduct his own defence while the process is being abuse, within the context of a seasoned legal professional. The names of the two or three informants who where Police Officers were never disclosed. The Information which was disclosed and had copy written on it is not a true copy according to, Black’s Law Dictionary, and is sterile of the informants identity. The Police Officers informants was kept secret, hidden, and never disclosed to the Applicant by the Crown. Which is not forthcoming, but misleading. Madam Justice S. Healey error in assuming the undisclosed Informants were available for cross examination and failed to give articulated reasons or justification for her said assumption.

[1445] To take a small look at the contended issue concerning the informations filed against the Applicant. One should remember that the Informants are Police Officers. Officers which are required by their inherent duty to disclosed their Badge number and name when about the business of Her Majesty The Queen; public agents which are not secret agents, but COPS, CIVIL OPERATED POLICE SERVICES. It is within this context that the contested Informant/Information issue should be viewed.

[1446] If the Informants were called, this would give the Officers and the Crown the opportunity to defend the validity, legal basis and benefit to society of there Information against the Applicant.

B. Hird the Informants for Information 07-02500.

Joe Willmets (974) the Informants for Information 07-02559.

[1447] the Jurat of both Information constitute a false oath, a negative oath. In essence, this is perjury!

[1448] A presiding Justice of the Ontario Superior Appellate Court has advised the Applicant that his urine analysis exam (Drug Test) cannot be used as evidence. Accordingly it constitutes hearsay. The Applicant assumes, the reason for this is because the Doctor who took the sample and the Lab Technician who performed the test has not been call to give evidence with respect to the said drug test.

[1449] In the spirit of fairness, equity, uniformity and the “TRUTH SEEKING FUNCTION”. The same logic should could be used to analyze the declared allegations of the informants within the informations. The same reasoning can be used to declare the allegations within the Informations Hearsay, because the informants identity and there relevant Officers notes were not disclosed. Nor were they called to give evidence with respect to there respective Information or allege allegations within there respective Information.

[1450] The Appellate Court has dismissed the Applicant’s Application to Admit evidence in calling the Informants. Furthermore, the Crown has successfully argued against the Informants being called.

[1451] Accordingly, the the existence of the informants as real entities of this society has not been established and the informants allegations in the Information and there sworn oath of personal knowledge and reasonable belief of the allegations has not been confirmed or defended in a court of competent jurisdiction.

[1452] Moreover, there is no legal basis for information which constitute a negative oath. In short, the allegations within the incurable defective Information does not exist at bar.

[1453] There is an onus placed on the Prosecutor to ensure that the face of the information is regular and the Information is regular and the Information is valid with a positive Oath, before the full force of Justice is brought to bear on the accused, according to R. V. Peavoy (1974), 15 C.C.C. (2d) 97.

[1454] At the 27^th July 2009, Applicant Hearing. Mr. Tait, for the Crown advised the Court and the Applicant that the informants for the Informations or not usually called. In the Applicant’s humble, non legal professional opinion; this is an improper practice and an affront to the the protocols of the high office of a public prosecutor in an adversarial judicial system.

[1455] Firstly, the accused or his agent has a right to cross examine the informant and respective information.

[1456] Secondly, one has a right to challenge the allegations or the basis of the allegations in a fair, free and democratic Canada.

[1457] Thirdly, the onus is on the prosecutor to ensure the Information is regular on the face and the informants swore a positive oath of reasonable belief, and having personable knowledge of the allegations within the Information.

[1458] Fourthly, the C.C. annotation allude to the importance of insuring that the informants oath of reasonable belief, is not a false oath.

[1459] Fifthly, case law speak about the importance of following the protocols concerning an Information, set down in the C.C. by the legislator.

[1460] Sixthly, accordingly it strikes me as misleading and not being forward or forthcoming to disclosed a copy of the Informations with copy written on it to an unrepresented Applicant; But, it is not a true copy. It is sterile of the identity of the Informants and Justice commissioner. Yet the agents of the minister of Justice, Justice Boswell, and Justice Healey still asserts that the accuse had equal opportunity to call these none disclosed nameless informants, who lives in the shadows, in the closet so to speak. Their are mere phantoms until they can be called and give evidence to support their allegations.

[1461] The usually reason of protecting witnesses or informants, cannot be used to justify this action. The Informants are Officers, and are required by law to give there name and badge number upon request.

← POLICE PROTOCOL

“... A York Regional Police Officer:

* will provide his or her name and badge number upon request.

* who is not in uniform will present proper identification; you may ask to examine the badge and photo identification so that you are satisfied the person is a police officer.

”

(POLICE POLICY, YORK REGION POLICE SERVICES WEB PAGE, page 1)

[1462] Seventhly;

1. the Information is based on the informant’s personal knowledge ;

2. the Information is based on the informant’s reasonable personal honest belief;

3. the informant’s person honest belief is based on Officer Broughton’s personal invoice;

4. officer Broughton, does-not have personal honest belief that he had reasonable objective cause to arrest;

5. officer Broughton and Officer Stribell was shown to be not credible;

6. the Informations are based on Officer Broughton invoice;

7. therefore, is the Informants reasonable honest belief, truly reasonable?

[1463] Eighthly, when last I checked. We live in a free, fair, democratic, well loved Canada. Not a police state, where unchallenged allegations and accusations can be made in the shadows. Where the ones making the allegations do not have to defend it, show cause or merits. Is this what we want for our beloved Canada, or is this to become a common practice in Canadian legal institutions?

[1464] When did the filing of an Information to set in motion the wheels of justice, become a covert act?

• Who are the two or three informants in the Information?

• Who cannot be called to give evidence; cannot be cross examined?

• Who are these phantom Officer/Informants who operate from the shadows in the context of secrecy?

• Call them out!

• Unmask them!

• Give them the opportunity to defend there Informations,

• and justify there allegations

• Do they even exist, or are they manufactured?

• Are they a figment of someone's imagination?

[1465] The information cannot stand on it’s own without the informants. It cannot give authority and jurisdiction without a valid oath of reasonable honest belief. Byway of personable knowledge. The Information cannot exist without the informant. Likewise, the informant, does not exist until he can be called to defend his reasonable belief of the allegations within the Information. Is it fair, is it equitable, if an unconfirmed person or persons can make unchallenged allegations and accusations from the shadows?

Prosecution, based on perjury, negative oath and secrecy, does-not exit at bar!

[1466] The singular most important properties in a free and democratic society, is that one can call and challenge allege allegations and accusations and ask for the informant to justify or articulate the allege allegation and accusations with in the context of merits. To expunged the falsehoods and bring to light the truth.

[1467] The biggest threat to our way and Canadian society, is when this noble notion is cast aside under the guise of efficiency and security; plunging us head first into a police state. This is not in the interest of society! This is not in the interest of the public good!

This is an affront to the ends of ethical justice and social morality!

“Content of an information or indictment.

(POLICE OFFICERS MANUAL 2000, page 431)

[1468] Thus CASE 14: has been proven.

Therefore, excluding Information 07-02500 from the Appellate process and the C51190 has prejudice the matter before the Court against the Applicant.

485. (1) Jurisdiction over an offence is not lost by reason of the failure of any court, judge, provincial court judge or justice to act in the exercise of that jurisdiction at any particular time, or by reason of a failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Act respecting adjournments or remands.

When accused not present

(1.1) Jurisdiction over an accused is not lost by reason of the failure of the accused to appear personally, so long as subsection 515(2.2), paragraph 537(1)(j), (j.1) or (k), subsection 650(1.1) or (1.2), paragraph 650(2)(b) or 650.01(3)(a), subsection 683(2.1) or 688(2.1) or a rule of court made under section 482 or 482.1 applies.

Summons or warrant

(2) Where jurisdiction over an accused or a defendant is lost and has not been regained, a court, judge, provincial court judge or justice may, within three months after the loss of jurisdiction, issue a summons, or if it or he considers it necessary in the public interest, a warrant for the arrest of the accused or defendant.

Dismissal for want of prosecution

(3) Where no summons or warrant is issued under subsection (2) within the period provided therein, the proceedings shall be deemed to be dismissed for want of prosecution and shall not be recommenced except in accordance with section 485.1.

Adjournment and order

(4) Where, in the opinion of the court, judge, provincial court judge or justice, an accused or a defendant who appears at a proceeding has been misled or prejudiced by reason of any matter referred to in subsection (1), the court, judge, provincial court judge or justice may adjourn the proceeding and may make such order as it or he considers appropriate.

Part XVI to apply

(5) The provisions of Part XVI apply with such modifications as the circumstances require where a summons or warrant is issued under subsection (2).

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 485; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 67; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F); 1997, c. 18, s. 40; 2002, c. 13, s. 19.

CONCLUSION: