PART 2 - WHY I AM HATED, DISPISED, AND LEGALLY BULLIED IN ONTARIO COURTS?

Court file No.: CV-12-0716-00

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

(Central West Region)

WAYNE FERRON

-versus-

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF CANADA

PAULETTE MELANSON

PAUL RICHARD

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

J. SANTINO

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO

MINISTRY of COMMUNITY SAFETY and CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

PETER WESTGATE

JEFFREY COSTAIN

JOANNE STUART

MATTHEW ADAMS

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

#2261 PEKESKI M.

WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM

DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER

DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI

DR. R HOOD

DR. PARTHA ACHARYYA

DR. CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH

MRS. HAMILTON(Nurse in charge)

NICOLE ARBOUR

CINDY KREIGER

SALVATION ARMY

HARRY BOOM

VOLUME 1 of 2

AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM

(ACTION COMMENCED BY NOTICE OF ACTION)

NOTICE OF ACTION ISSUED ON FEB. 22, 2012; Pursuant to Rule 14, of the RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

INFORMATIONS, 07-02559:

1. RELATIONSHIP WITH EMPLOYER: Master and Servant

2. RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF: Relationship of Trust and Confidence, Law Enforcement Institution

3. Tort of Negligence, of Duty to which York Regional Police services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.

4. Constitutional Tort Section 8, Section 9, Section 10(a), Section 10(b), Section 7, Section 15(1), Section 24(1), and Section 32 to which Her Majesty in the Right of Ontario is vicariously liable for.

5. CAUSE OF ACTION: Negligence of Duty owed to the public, contravention of the Professional Standards of Reasonable Care, discriminatory enforcement of the law, nonuniform application of the law, Systemic Racism, Racial Profiling, denial of legal rights, and denial of civil and political rights; is the right to be represented by competent legal professional advocate, a false right?

[172] The Applicant alleges that Joe Willmets (974) is an Affiant and not Informant with in the context of laying Information 07-02559.

[173] The Applicant alleges that Joe Willmets (974) is neither an Informant nor a witness in possession of personal knowledge of the allegation in Information 07-02559.

[174] The Applicant alleges that Joe Willmets (974), is the Affiant for Information 07-02559; furthermore, Joe Willmets(974) acted in the capacity of a witness, acted in the capacity of an Informant, and signed the Jurat in Information 07-02559 as Joe Willmets (974) in the capacity of an Informant; while engaged in a legal process of laying an Information before a Justice of the Peace and taking an oath of reasonable belief with respect to Information 07-02559 while acting in the capacity of a witness.

[175] The Applicant alleges that Joe Willmets (974) is an Affiant and not an Informant with in the context of laying Information 07-02559, and in accordance with Section 2.(INTERPRETATION) subsection (v) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[176] The Applicant alleges that Joe Willmets (974) falsely acted in the capacity of an Informant in laying Information 07-02559 before a Justice of the Peace on or about the 29^th day of March in the year 2007 at the City of Newmarket in the Regional Municipality of York , while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario.

[177] The Applicant further alleges that Joe Willmets(974) falsely effected a positive oath(false oath), in the capacity of a witness possessing personal knowledge and reasonable belief of the allegations articulated in Information 07-02559 before a Justice of the Peace, on a date not indicated in his police memorandum notebook, at the City of Newmarket in the Regional Municipality of York, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario. He swore to both Information 07-02559 and Subpoena 06-239794 on an unknown or unconfirmed date.

[178] Any discrepancies or fallacies surrounding the Information(07-02559), Officer Joe Willmets(974) must claim responsibility for; it is a cross he choose when he swore a positive oath of reasonable belief in the capacity of a witness/informant for Information 07-02559, when he should have took an oath on a “reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe” in the capacity of an Affiant wanting of personal knowledge, in accordance with parliamentary legislation; for an entity laying and information without personal knowledge of the allegations within the same information.

[179] The Applicant alleges that DC Joe Willmets(974) willingly chose to barter his credibility for the validity of Invoice (07-3542) and the soundness or void-ability of Information 07-02500 which he endeavored to replace with Information 07-02559 in contravention of Section 505 clause (b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. His duly sworn duty and the high standard of his chosen profession demands a high level of professional responsibility in the foreseeability of damage to the Plaintiff. Joe Willmets(974) inherent responsibility as a Public Law Enforcement Agent, is a civil-load Officer Willmets(974) should bare and it is a cross he must carry.

505. Where

(b) an accused has been released from custody under section 497 or 498, an information relating to the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused or relating to an included or other offence alleged to have been committed by him shall be laid before a justice as soon as practicable thereafter and in any event before the time stated in the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance issued to or given or entered into by the accused for his attendance in court.

R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5.

[180] The Applicant alleges that DC Joe Willmets(974) laid before a Justice of the Peace Information 07-02559 and took an oath of reasonable belief of the truthfulness of the allegations within the same Information without having a signed statement from the complainant, in addition to not vetting the information contained in Officer Broughton’s(1079) Invoice(07-3542) or determining the validity of information 07-02500 and the credibility or legal existence of it’s Informant B. Hird.

[181] The Applicant alleges that DC Joe Willmets(974) within the context of public confidence and the trust of Her-Majesty the Queen placed in him to duly perform his professional duty; should have known or aught to have known that RECOGNIZANCE OF BAIL 07-02500 was entered into by the Plaintiff and filing Information 07-02559 was contrary to Section 505, clause (b), of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[182] The Applicant alleges that DC Joe Willmets (974) within the context of public confidence and the trust Her-Majesty the Queen placed in him to duly perform his professional duty; should have known or aught to have known that he must file or lay before a Justice of the Peace in a Court of competent Jurisdiction an Information(07-02559), in the prescribed time indicated by Section 505.(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada; in any event, before the accuse enters into a Recognizance for Information 07-02500 in accordance with parliamentary legislation.

[183] The Applicant alleges that DC Joe Willmets(974) within the context of public confidence and the trust of Her-Majesty the Queen placed in him to duly perform his professional duty; should have known or aught to have known that it was not possible for Information 07-02500 to find or have lawful process and was therefore voidable.

[184] The Applicant alleges that DC Joe Willmets (974) within the context of public confidence and the trust of Her-Majesty the Queen placed in him to duly perform his professional duty; should have known or aught to have known that it was not possible for Information 07-02559 to find lawful process, nor is Information 07-02559 capable of relying on information 07-02500 process, in accordance with Section 523 subsection (1.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, nor was Information 07-02559 capable of finding process in contravention of Section 505, clause (b), of the Criminal Code of Canada and was therefore voidable.

[185] The Applicant allege that DC Joe Willmets(974), improperly set the full force of the wheel of justice against the Plaintiff and caused him to be unnecessarily harass, when he took a positive oath of reasonable belief of the allegations contained in Information No.: 07-02559 and filed the said information against the Plaintiff.

[186] The Applicant alleges DC Joe Willmets(974), failed in his obligation as a Crown Agent, failed in his obligatory duty to the public, while acting in the capacity of a Police Officer Informant in swearing an information to swear-truthfully and not to mislead the Judicial Officer endorsing his Information(07-02559).

[187] DC Joe Willmets(974) should have know or aught to have known because it is his professional responsibility to know, that the aforesaid is Legal Fraud which serves to diminish the effectiveness of the Plaintiff’s Legal Rights and was effective in diminish his children’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in addition to the Applicant’s. It is the Law Enforcement Officers business to know and it is their responsibility to be familiar with the POLICE SERVICE ACT, the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, the CHARTER, and relevant Acts in addition to the Plaintiff’s Rights and Freedoms. The foreseeability of damage was relatively apparent, caused by the improper actions of Law enforcement Agents against the Plaintiff, in denying or impeding his LEGAL RIGHTS and ACCESS TO JUSTICE.

INFORMATIONS, 09-14407:

1. RELATIONSHIP WITH EMPLOYER: MINISTRY of COMMUNITY SAFETY and CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

2. RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF: Relationship of Trust and Confidence(Probation and Parole)

3. Tort of Privacy, to which Region of Peel and Her Majesty in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.

4. Tort of Assault/Battery, to which Region of Peel and Her Majesty in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.

5. Tort of Negligence, to which Region of Peel and Her Majesty in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.

6. Tort of Fraud/Deceit, to which Region of Peel and Her Majesty in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.

7. Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, to which Region of Peel and Her Majesty in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.

8. Constitutional Tort Section 7, Section 11(a), Section 11(c), Section 11(d), Section 24(1), and Section 32(1) to which Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario and Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Canada are vicariously liable.

9. CAUSE OF ACTION: Breach of Trust and Confidence, Breach of Professional Standard of Reasonable Care, Breach of INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, Negligence of Duty owed to the public, Malicious procurement of legal instruments, malicious prosecution, legal fraud, self-incrimination, racial profiling, systemic racism, assault/battery, invasion of privacy, misfeasance of duty, nonfeasance of duty, and denial of legal rights, denial of civil and political rights; is the right to be represented by competent legal professional advocate, a false right?

[188] The Applicant alleges that Gloria Gingrich is an Affiant and not an Informant with in the context of laying Information 09-14407.

[189] The Applicant alleges that Gloria Gingrich is neither an Informant nor a witness in possession of personal knowledge of the allegation in Information 09-14407.

[190] The Applicant alleges that Gloria Gingrich, is the Affiant for Information 09-14407; furthermore, Gloria Gingrich acted in the capacity of a witness, she acted in the capacity of an Informant, and she signed the Jurat under oath in Information 09-14407 as Gloria Gingrich, while engaged in a legal process of laying an Information before a Justice of the Peace(Justice P. H. Wilkie) and taking an oath of reasonable belief in her personal knowledge supporting the allegations Information 09-14407, while acting in the capacity of a witness.

[191] The Applicant alleges that Gloria Gingrich is an Affiant and not an Informant nor a witness within the context of laying Information 09-14407 before a Justice of the Peace, and in accordance with Section 2.(INTERPRETATION) subsection (v) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[192] The Applicant alleges that Gloria Gingrich falsely acted in the capacity of an Informant in laying Information 09-01407 before a Justice of the Peace on or about the 26^th day of October in the year 2009 at the City of Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario.

[193] The Applicant alleges that Gloria Gingrich falsely acted in the capacity of a witness in laying Information 09-014407 before a Justice of the Peace on or about the 26^th day of October 2009, about one month after the successful completion of PROBATION ORDER 07-02559 without incident at the City of Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario.

[194] The Applicant further alleges that Gloria Gingrich falsely effected a positive oath(false oath), in the capacity of a witness possessing personal knowledge and reasonable belief of the allegations articulated in Information 09-14407 before a Justice of the Peace(Justice P. H. Wilkie), on or about the 26^th day of October in the year 2009 at the City of Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario.

[195] Any discrepancies or fallacies surrounding the said Information 09-014407, Probation Officer Gloria Gingrich must claim responsibility for; it is a cross she chose when she swore a positive oath of reasonable belief in the capacity of a witness/informant for Information 09-14407, when she should have took an oath on a “reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe” in the capacity of an Affiant wanting of personal knowledge, in accordance with parliamentary legislation, for an entity laying an Information without personal knowledge of the allegations within the same information.

[196] The Applicant alleges that Gloria Gingrich laid before a Justice of the Peace Justice P. H. Wilkie, Information 09-14407 and took an oath of reasonable belief of the truthfulness of the allegations within the same information within the capacity of an Informant, and in addition to not vetting the information contained in Officer ANGELA PASQUALE’s Invoice or Brief in determining the validity or the credibility her allegation against the Plaintiff.

[197] The Plaintiff Alleges Gloria Gingrich within the context of public confidence and the trust of Her-Majesty the Queen placed in her to duly perform her professional duty; should have known or aught to have known that it was not possible for Information 09-14407 to find or have lawful process with a defective jurat and was therefore voidable. The foreseeability of damage was relatively apparent, caused by the improper actions of Probation Officers against the Plaintiff, in denying or impeding his LEGAL RIGHTS and in ACCESS TO JUSTICE.

[198] The Applicant allege that Gloria Gingrich, improperly set the full force of the wheel of justice against the Plaintiff when she took a positive oath of reasonable belief of the allegations contained in Information 09-14407 and filed the said information against the Plaintiff.

[199] The Applicant alleges Gloria Gingrich, failed in her obligation as a Crown Agent, failed in her obligatory duty to the public, while acting in the capacity of a Probation Officer Informant in swearing an information to swear-truthfully and not to mislead the Judicial Officer endorsing her Information 09-14407.

[200] Plaintiff Alleges that the successful completion date without incident of Probation Order 07-02559, was on 25^th day of September 2009.

[201] Plaintiff Alleges that before the 25^th day of September 2009, on or about 2^nd of September 2009, at about 9:00 A.M. Madame Angela Pasquale advised the Plaintiff that there was no need for him to attend any more probation appointments. However, if he moved he must contact and inform her of any move. Probation Officer Madame Angela Pasquale instructed the Plaintiff in no uncertain terms that he did not need to attend any more Probation session.

[202] Plaintiff Alleges that before the 25^th day of September 2009, on or about 2^nd of September 2009, at about 9:30 A.M. Madame Angela Pasquale assaulted the Plaintiff in the hallway in-front of her office while he was effecting a legal service of a Freedom of Information request without lawful excuse, contrary to Section 265., subsection (1), clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. This was the Applicant’s third requisition for information, Probation and Parole failed to respond to the first two request in contravention of the Freedom of Information Act.

[203] Plaintiff Alleges that before the 25^th day of September 2009, on or about 2^nd of September 2009, at about 9:00 A.M. Madame Angela Pasquale did, utter a threat to the Plaintiff after assaulting him. She boldly announced to the Applicant;

“get out, or I will have you escorted out !”.

even-though she knows the details of GO 2007-700285 and the Applicant’s complaint of Police brutality, defamation and the trauma the Applicant received to his life and his person at the hands of fringe elements in the YORK REGIONAL POLICE. The aforesaid was done in hallway in-front of her office while he was effecting a legal service of a Freedom of Information request without lawful excuse, contrary to Section 264.1, subsection (1), clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Furthermore, the Plaintiff advised Madame Angela Pasquale that the citation for the laws which form the basis for his freedom of information requisition, were in the legally served document.

[204] Plaintiff Alleges that after Probation Officer Madame Angela Pasquale on or about the 26^th of October 2009, filed or initiated OCC. NO.: PR09198646, one month after assaulting the Plaintiff for effecting a legal service of a Freedom of Information request without lawful excuse; she endeavour to initiated malicious prosecution against the Plaintiff vicariously through Gloria Gingrich at a date and time when the PROBATION ORDER 07-02559 had expired.

[205] Plaintiff Alleges that after Probation Officer Madame Angela Pasquale assaulted the Plaintiff for effecting a legal service of a Freedom of Information request without lawful excuse; she initiated malicious procurement of a SUMMONS; the Applicant was SUMMONED AS A PERSON CHARGED WITH AN OFFENCE; to appear on the 21^st day of December 2009, at 12:00 noon, for the purposes of the identification of Criminals Act, to appear before a Judge and be spoken to at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton, Ontario, on a date and time when the PROBATION ORDER 07-02559 had expired.

[206] Plaintiff Alleges that after Probation Officer Madame Angela Pasquale assault the Plaintiff for effecting a lawful legal service of a Freedom of Information request without lawful excuse; she initiated malicious procurement of a SUMMONS; the Applicant was SUMMONED AS A PERSON CHARGED WITH AN OFFENCE, to appear on the 8^th day of December 2009, at 9:00 a.m., for the purposes of the identification of Criminals Act, to be fingerprinted and photograph on a date and time when the PROBATION ORDER 07-02559 had expired, at Peel Regional Police at, 7750 Hurontario Street, Brampton, Ontario. It should be noted that the only question the Officer conducting the fingerprinting and photographing asked the Plaintiff was;

“WHERE WERE YOU BORN?”

The malicious procurements, the humiliation, the criminalization, the social stigmatization, and the aggravation was a foreseeable consequence, when the full force of the wheels of justice was improperly set into motion for an unjust cause.

[207] Plaintiff Alleges that after Probation Officer Madame Angela Pasquale assault the Plaintiff for effecting a legal service of a Freedom of Information request without lawful excuse; she maliciously initiated paper work to have the Plaintiff classified or profiled as mentally diseased individual at a date and time when the PROBATION ORDER 07-02559 had expired.

[208] Plaintiff Alleges that after Probation Officer Madame Angela Pasquale assault the Plaintiff for effecting a legal service of a Freedom of Information request without lawful excuse; she actively south supporting documentation to have the plaintiff incarcerated for 15 days for an allege charge(S. 733.1(1) of C.C.), of violation of PROBATION ORDER 07-02559,i.e. certified copes of PROBATION ORDER 07-02559, Justice Healey’s Ruling on Appeal(07-02559) at a date and time when the PROBATION ORDER 07-02559 had expired.

[209] Plaintiff Alleges that after Probation Officer Madame Angela Pasquale assault the Plaintiff for effecting a legal service of a Freedom of Information request without lawful excuse; She effected willful legal Harassment of the Applicant without lawful excuse or moral justification. Yet OCC. NO.: PR09198646 remains in the Peel Regional Police records diminishing the Applicant’s credibility/reputation in addition to his mug shot, and finger prints even though he has successfully defeated or caused the Crown to withdraw information Information No.: 09 - 14407 for want of evidence and inability to prove allegation in the same information.

[210] Plaintiff Alleges that the Crown asserts that the Plaintiff, on November 24, 2008, the Applicant was provided with both verbal and written instructions to attend for a substance abuse assessment on February 4^th, 2009.

[211] Plaintiff Alleges that on or about the 26^th of October 2009, Probation Officers Madame Angela Pasquale and Gloria Gingrich filed OCC.# PR09198646 and Information No.: 09 - 14407 against the Plaintiff. For alleged failure to Comply with (TREATMENT) without reasonable excuse, contrary to section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The prosecution was seeking 15 day custody or jail term to be commence on the successful completion of the prosecution’s case.

[212] The Plaintiff further Alleges that there was no definition, articulated reasons, justification, purpose or desired objective given for the alleged TREATMENT(substance abuse assessment). Moreover, the word of interest, “TREATMENT”, was not even defined, nor was their articulated hard copy of documentation with respect to the PURPOSE, METHOD and OBJECTIVE of the so called, “TREATMENT” for substance abuse. There was no identification of the alleged substance being abused or implicated in an abuse, or explanation as to how long it was being abused, or documented negative effects of its abuse. In short, there was no history for the aforesaid.

[213] The Plaintiff further Alleges that Madame Angela Pasquale and Gloria Gingrich involvement in filing Information No.: 09 - 14407 against the Plaintiff was frivolous, malicious and had no basis in law. They were acting in contravention of the Criminal Code of Canada and the Professional Standards of Reasonable Care in effecting actions which caused the Applicant to be assaulted, threaten and humiliated; furthermore, Madame Angela Pasquale unjustified drugs/alcohol assessment, fingerprinting, and photographing served to further criminalization, social stigmatization and to humiliation the Applicant.

CROWN ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO EFFECT INHERENT DUTY:

1. RELATIONSHIP WITH EMPLOYER: Master and Servant

2. RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF: Trust and Confidence, Public Prosecutor

3. Tort of Negligence, to which Mr. Peter Westgate, Mr. Jeffery Costain, Ms. Joanne Stuart, and Mr. Matthew Asma and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.

4. Tort of Breach of Statutory Duty, to which Mr. Peter Westgate, Mr. Jeffery Costain, Ms. Joanne Stuart, and Mr. Matthew Asma and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.

5. Tort of Breach of Interlocking Duties, to which Mr. Peter Westgate, Mr. Jeffery Costain, Ms. Joanne Stuart, and Mr. Matthew Asma and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.

6. Constitutional Tort Section 7,Section 11(b), Section 11(d), Section 15(1), Section 24(1) and Section 32(1) to which Mr. Peter Westgate, Mr. Jeffery Costain, Ms. Joanne Stuart, and Mr. Matthew Asma and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada are vicariously liable.

7. CAUSE OF ACTION: Breach of Trust and Confidence, Breach of INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, Negligence of Duty, malicious prosecution, suppression/denial of evidence, denial of witnesses, abuse of process, denial of a lawyer, denial of equity in law, financial barrier to accessing justice, legal fraud, artificial administrative barrier to accessing justice, racial profiling, systemic racism, nonfeasance of duty, misfeasance of duty and denial of legal rights, denial of civil and political rights; is the right to be represented by competent legal professional advocate, a false right?

Mr. Peter Westgate:

[214] The Plaintiff Alleges that On the 6^th of April 2009, the Applicant’s Hearing date for a prior file motion for STAY OF PROHIBITION APPLICATION FOR SUBJECTIVE DRUGs/ALCOHOL TESTING AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION 07-02559 on the bases of fairness and equity guaranteed by the Fundamental Rule of Justice, was to be heard at the Newmarket SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central East Region).

[215] The Plaintiff further alleges that on the same day his said matter was not listed to be heard at Newmarket Courthouse on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice daily court docket, on the motion’s returnable date. The said motion had to be listed as an “add on” matter. The Application’s included Affidavit of Wayne Ferron, was never cross examined by Mr. Westgate who was acting for the Crown.

[216] The Plaintiff Alleges that on the 4^th of May 2009, the Applicant’s Hearing date for a prior file motion, MOTION for DIRECTION Application 07-02559; for the purpose of perfecting the Appeal.

[217] The Plaintiff further alleges that on the same day his said matter was again not listed to be heard at Newmarket Courthouse on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice daily court docket, on the motion’s returnable date for the second time. The said motion had to be listed as an “add on” matter. The Application’s included Affidavit of Wayne Ferron in the NOTICE OF APPEAL for INMATE APPEAL 07-02559, was never cross examined by Mr. Westgate who was acting for the Crown.

[218] The Plaintiff further Alleges that on the said date the honourable Justice(Justice Bryant) advised that the said Application “would not be heard” on its returnable date of May 4, 2009; Your Honour adjourned the motion to June 1, 2009, the Appeal Hearing Date and ordered the Crown to;

• assist the Applicant in obtaining a copy of Exhibit 6B (DAY 56 SECURITY SURVEILLANCE VIDEO for GO 2007-70285 at 3D HQ);

• obtain and disclose YRP Audio Transmission CD (the missing material evidence from the exhibit).

[219] The Plaintiff Alleges that on the 1^st of June 2009(APPEAL HEARING DATE), the Appeal Hearing date; a single honourable presiding Superior Court Justice(Justice Howden) advised that the Applicant’s outstanding Application for motion for direction and to perfect the Appeal returnable on the 4^th of May 2009 and adjourned to 1^st of June 2009; ”would not be heard,” and it is still pending! The aforesaid is a contravention of natural justice and Procedural Fairness.

[220] The Plaintiff further Alleges that on the same day, the honourable presiding Justice of the Appellate Court, ordered the Crown to;

• obtain and disclose missing material evidence from the EXHIBIT (YRP Audio Transmission CD for GO 2007-70285) which was requested by the presiding Provincial Court Justice for information 07-02559 to be an exhibit;

• obtain and disclose a copy of Exhibit 6B (DAY 56 SECURITY SURVEILLANCE VIDEO for GO 2007-70285 at 3D HQ) to the Applicant;

• order, obtain, file and serve all required Transcripts which are outstanding and needed for the Appeal;

[221] The Plaintiff Alleges that on the 29^th of June 2009(adjournment from June 1, 2009), the honourable presiding Justice(Justice Mc Issac), ordered the Crown to;

• obtain and disclose missing material evidence from the exhibit (YRP Audio Transmission CD for GO 2007-70285) which was requested by the presiding Provincial Court Justice for information 07-02559 to be an exhibit;

• obtain and disclose a copy of Exhibit 6B (DAY 56 SECURITY SURVEILLANCE VIDEO for GO 2007-70285 at 3D HQ) to the Applicant;

• order, obtain, file and serve April 28, 2008 Application Transcript which is outstanding and needed for the Appeal;

[222] The Plaintiff Alleges that on the 3^rd of July 2009, the Crown received the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript from the court reporter Joanne Knaap.

[223] The Plaintiff Alleges that on the 20^th of July 2009, the Applicant’s Hearing date for a prior filed motion, Application to FIX DATE for HEARING of APPEAL; pursuant to Rule 8 and Rule 19 and Section 819 of C.C.. was not heard and the same Motion is still pending!

[224] The Plaintiff further Alleges that his matter was not listed to be heard at Newmarket Courthouse on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice daily court docket, on the motion’s returnable date for the third time. The said motion had to be listed as an “add on” matter. The Application was not heard; but the honourable Justice Bryant of the Appellate Court, ordered Mr. Westgate who was acting for the Crown to;

• assist Applicant in obtaining a copy of Exhibit 6B (DAY 56 SECURITY SURVEILLANCE VIDEO for GO 2007-70285 at 3D HQ);

• order, obtain, file and serve April 28, 2008 Application Transcript;

[225] The Plaintiff further Alleges, Your Honour(Justice Bryant), ordered the Applicant to;

• attend Crown’s office and bring all Transcript that he has in his possession; to enable the Crown to order all Transcripts needed for the Appeal.

in contravention of Rule 4, RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, Commentary, on page 54 which asserts as follows;

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

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

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

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

[226] The Plaintiff Alleges that on the 21^st of July 2009, Mr. Westgate acting for the Crown, disclosed to the Applicant the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript and a partial copy of Exhibit 6B (DAY 56 SECURITY SURVEILLANCE VIDEO for GO 2007-70285 at 3D HQ).

[227] The Plaintiff further Alleges that the same disclosed Monday April 28, 2008 Application Transcript for Information No. 07-02500 and 07-02559;

• was bound in red covers;

• on the front red cover, is was written “ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN V. WAYNE FERRON Monday April 28, 2008 INFORMATION NO. 07-02500 and 07-02559”

• on the back red cover, it is stamped with the Crown’s Office official stamp which states, “RECEIVED Jul 03 2009 OFFICE OF CROWN ATTORNEY YORK REGION”;

• within the said document which goes by the title “Form 2 Certificate of Transcript (subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act”, is stamped with the Crown’s Office official stamp which states “RECEIVED Jul 03 2009 OFFICE OF CROWN ATTORNEY YORK REGION”;

• on the last page of the said document which goes by the title “Form 2 Certificate of Transcript (subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act” is the signature and relevant information of Joanne Knaap;

• the said document was ordered on June 2, 2009;

• the said document was Transcript Completed on Monday May 5, 2008;

• the said document, which is a reprint of the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript, was produced on Thursday July 2, 2009;

• the ordering Party of the said document was notified on Friday July 3, 2009, but not the Plaintiff even thought the rules of civil procedure demands that all party be notified in writing;

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

• The Plaintiff was able to identify the Crown Attorney by name, personal features, the Clerks identified him as Mr. Westgate, the said person answered to the name Mr. Westgate.

[228] The Plaintiff further Alleges that Mr. Westgate for the Crown inferred in his argument to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, on the 20^th of July 2009, that the Applicant was holding up the Appeal because of his inability to bring or photo copy, April 28, 2008 Application Transcripts in his possession to the Crown’s Office. This argument convinced the the Chief Justice of the Appellate Court to issue an order against the Applicant based on false pretense from the Crown; to attend the Crown’s office with all the Transcripts in his possession. Asper the Certification form by way of FORM 2 of the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript; the Crown was in possession of the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript since Friday July 3, 2009. Yet the Prosecutor or Crown Attorney(Mister Peter Westgate), asserts explicitly in court that the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript was holding up or impeding Appeal 07-02559.

[229] The Plaintiff further Alleges that he was never notified in writing of the completion of the Transcripts ordered by the Crown and is unsure, if April 28, 2008 Application Transcript was prepared with due diligence and in accordance with Rule 40.06(11) and Rule 40.06(12).

4.01 THE LAWYER AS ADVOCATE

Advocacy

(d) endeavour or allow anyone else to endeavour, directly or indirectly, to influence the decision or action of a tribunal or any of its officials in any case or matter by any means other than open persuasion as an advocate,

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

[230] The Plaintiff Alleges that on the 14^th of September 2009, at or about 9:30 A.M., while waiting in the initial court room to be spoken to, while sitting in the first row, far left corner, on the far left seat. Mr. Westgate for the Crown, on entering the court room declared in a loud voice with reference to the Plaintiff’s name (Wayne), that he had filed, “ a shit load of stuff!” He advised and instructed the clerk of the court to advised the presiding Superior Court Justice not to read the materials filed and served because there was too much material. The Plaintiff infer this to mean, the supporting documentation for the Constitutional Question, he filed prior to September 14, 2009. The aforesaid was done in contravention of Section 12.3.2 of The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK and Rule 4 clause(d) of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT.

12.3.2 Improper attempts to influence judicial officer

In a contested cause or matter, Crown counsel shall not attempt, or knowingly allow anyone else to attempt, to influence the decisions or actions of a judicial officer, directly or indirectly, except by means of open persuasion as an advocate.

(The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK, section 12.3.2)

[231] The Plaintiff further alleges that on the said day, the Hearing was move from the initial court room on the first floor to an alternate room on the second floor. When the Plaintiff was called to be spoken to, Your Worship, the Honourable Justice O’cownell, declared while presiding over the said hearing, that he was due to leave on vacation and was not prepared to hear a long motion. The Applicant was the last of many to be called that day, even though he was one of the first person to arrive at the respective court room at the Newmarket Courthouse, on the morning of the 14^th of September 2009.

Ms. Cheryl Goodier:

[232] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 3^rd of August 2007, in an appearance hearing to be spoken to on the Matter of 07-02500/07-02559, the presiding Justice/Court advised the Plaintiff that if he required further disclosure he can make any request for further disclosure in writing or come in person to the Crown’s Attorney's Office. The Crown(Mr. Billington) also advised the Plaintiff the same on the aforesaid matter.

[233] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 13^th April 2007, the Crown disclose notes from the following three Officers for GO 2007-70285; DC Burd (#1075), DCst Broughton (#1075) and DC Stribbell (#529); and rescinded YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES disclosure audio CD evidence for GO 2007-70285 without notice to the Plaintiff.

[234] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 15^th January 2008, the Crown disclose

a copy of Day 56 3D HQ security surveillance tape for GO 2007-70285, after more than 9 Months.

[235] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 15^th January 2008, the Crown disclose notes from the following seven Officers for GO 2007-70285; DC Burd (#1075), DCst Broughton (#1075), DC Stribbell (#529), PC Monk (#1399), PC Brown (#1666), PC Williamson (#1108), and SSGT Ringler (#193) after more than 9 Months.

[236] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 16^th April 2008, the The York Regional Police disclose notes from Beattie’s(1583) for GO 2007-70285; he had requested Officer Beattie’s(1583) on the 7^th of March 2008; Janet Raylan (5234) of the York Regional freedom of information services disclosed officer PC Beattie(1583) notes for GO 2007-70285 after an Appeal to the Freedom of Information Commission.

[237] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 11^th of October 2007, the Crown sent a notification for disclose to the plaintiff via Purolator Courier after 7 months had passed, to pick up the 911 voice dialog for GO 07-70285 in CD format; this same disclosure was fraudulently requested by Officer Stribbell(529) under the appearance of being requested by Officer Broughton(1079).

[238] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 7^th of December 2007, the Plaintiff requested further disclosure from the Crown byway of written articulation. There was no response from the Crown in regards to further disclosure.

[239] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 18^th of December 2007, the Plaintiff requested further disclosure from the Crown byway of written articulation. There was no response from the Crown in regards to further disclosure.

[240] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 15^th of January, 2008 at 13:13 hours the Crown delivered to the Plaintiff byway of Purolator Courier(tracking number 2856 562 749), a disclosure package of materials to be relied on at the trial set to commencement on the 18^th of January 2008 at 9:30 AM; two days before the trial commence for 07-02500/07-02559.

[241] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 18^th of January 2008, in courtroom 103 with Mr. Amit Ghosh for the Crown, the Applicant on the said morning of trial informed the same prosecutor of the untimely disclosures. The said Crown’s prosecutor advised that the date of the trial could be changed if the Applicant was to wave his rights. The Applicant strongly refused to wave his rights!

[242] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 7^th of March 2008, the Plaintiff requested further disclosure from the Crown(Ms. Cheryl Goodier) byway of written articulation. There was no response from the Crown in regards to further disclosure.

[243] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 11^th of April 2008, he requested further disclosure from the Crown(Ms. Cheryl Goodier) byway of written articulation. The Crown responded by bringing forward a disclosure Application, returnable on the 28^th of April 2008.

[244] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 18^th of April 2008, the Plaintiff sent a hand written letter to the prosecutor(Ms. Cheryl Goodier), via the Crown’s Office, requesting to change her unilaterally chosen 28^th of April 2008 Application date. There was no response from the Crown, even though Ms. Cheryl Goodier had given the option in her letter(notice of Application), to change the date of the said Application.

[245] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 22^nd of April 2008, the Applicant sent a typed letter to the prosecutor(Ms. Cheryl Goodier) via express mail(LT340772160 ca), requesting to change the 28^th of April 2008, application date. There was no response from the Crown, even though Ms. Cheryl Goodier had given the option in her letter to change the date of the application.

[246] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 28^th of April 2008, during the said application, Justice Kenkel/Court advised the Plaintiff that the Day 56 Courthouse Cells video surveillance tape of GO 07-70285, the Applicant was requesting as further disclosure was destroyed after 7 days of storage, and without notice to the Plaintiff from the Crown.

[247] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 20^th of May 2008, he advised the Crown’s counsel (Ms Goodier), byway of a letter which informed her of abuse of process by the Crown, i.e destruction of evidence, non disclosure, incomplete disclosure and the omission and disinformation perpetrated on the Applicant and the Courts by the Crown. There was no response from the Crown concerning the said letter.

[248] The Plaintiff further alleges that shortly after the 26^th of April 2011, about four years of suppression and denial of relevant evidence, after Information 07-02500/Information 07-02559 and prosecution effected against the Plaintiff were complete; the York Regional Police Services under the new appointed Chief of Police Eric Jolliffe, disclosed to the Plaintiff the Court Security Officer’s Notes of Affiant William Hird(Informant for Information No.: 07-02500), for Incident# 07-70285, byway of Officer Janet Ryland(5234) who carries the title “Analyst Freedom of Information Unit Legal Services”.

[249] The Plaintiff further alleges that shortly after the 26^th of April 2011, the York Regional Police Services under the new appointed Chief of Police Eric Jolliffe, disclosed to the Plaintiff the Court Security Officer’s Notes of Affiant William Hird(Informant for Information No.: 07-02500) for Incident# 07-70285, byway of Officer Janet Ryland(5234) who carries the title “Analyst Freedom of Information Unit Legal Services.”

[250] The Plaintiff further alleges that the following disclosure list is a subset of the disclosure package sent to the Plaintiff shortly after the 26^th of April 2011, from the York Regional Police Services under the reference number REF.#11-0247 for Incident # 07-70285 which occurred on March 27/28, 2007:

1. Constable William Hird #6058 notebook entries;

2. Constable Joe Willmets #974 notebook entries;

3. Constable Larone #1418 willsay and notebook entries;

4. copy of information 07-02500;

5. copy of YORK REGIONAL POLIE April 13, 2007 rescinded CD for Incident #07-70285 by the Crown;

6. and confirmation that no information or documentation on the questionable search of the Plaintiff’s vehicle exist.

[251] The Plaintiff alleges that, in general their has been an ongoing nondisclosure or destruction of evidence issue documented since 1999 in many case hearings at the New Market Court house.

“In R. v. Lok, unreported April 30, 2007, Shaw J. wrote at page 6, line 25:

In R. v. Singh reported at [2005] O.J. 5754, my colleague Justice

Armstrong held that the integrity of the justice system has been prejudiced and there has been a systemic disregard for the prosecution’s obligation to preserve relevant evidence in similar circumstances dealing with this arbitrary retention period. Since 1999 this Court has directed that this policy be discontinued yet it persists. As a result, time and time again, as evidenced by the numerous cases cited to this Court by the defence, charges have been stayed due to breaches of the Applicant’s rights as guaranteed under the Charter. The fact that his policy remains despite strongly worded judicial guidance amounts, I find, to a systemic disregard for the prosecution’s obligations of disclosure.”

(Citation: R. v. Yu, 2008 ONCJ 153, page# 10[41] )

COURT FILE No.: Newmarket Info #07-01755 other supporting jurisprudence are

Citations: R. v. Yu, 2008 ONCJ 153; R. v. Leung supra; R. v. Monaco, 2008 ONCJ 255; R. v. Li, [1999], O.J. No. 5163; R. v. Chechel, [1999] O.J. No. 5167; R. v. Ngo, [2000] O.J. No. 5778; R. v. Benincasa, [2001] O.J. No. 6032; R. v. Bormotko, [2002] O.J. No 945; R. v. Hakkarainen, [2003] O.J. No. 3210; R. v. Biasiotto, [2004] O.J. No. 2640; R. v. Terzo [2004] O.J. No. 5529; R. v. Singh [2005], O.J. No 5754; and R. v. Lipovetsky, 2007 ONCJ 484;

Mr. Jeffrey Costain:

[252] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 14^th of October 2009, Assistant Crown Attorney(Mr. Tait), asserts that the RESPONDENT FACTUM/BOOK OF AUTHORITIES 07-02559, belong to or is claimed by both him and Mr. Costain.

[253] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 14^th of October 2009, Assistant Crown Attorney(Mr. Tait), mislead Justice Healy for the wilful purpose of defeating the course of justice or at the minimum, perverting it; Mr. Tait asserts that there is “no air of reality to any of the issues raised by Mr. Ferron,” in contravention of Section 12.3.2 of The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK, Rule 4 clause(d) of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT, and in contravention of Section. 131, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[254] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 14^th of October 2009, Assistant Crown Attorney(Mr. Tait), mislead Justice Healy for the wilful purpose of defeating the course of justice or at the minimum, perverting it; Mr. Tait asserts that “ there is no air of reality to the constitutional issues raised on appeal.” In contravention of Section 12.3.2 of The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK, Rule 4 clause(d) of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT, and in contravention of Section. 131, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[255] The Plaintiff alleges that on or about the 2^nd day of October in the year 2009 at the City of Newmarket in the Regional Municipality of York, Mr. Costain and Mr. Tait did, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in the Right of Ontario, in addition to having carriage and control, while acting in the capacity of Crown’s Counsel for the Plaintiff’s matter(07-02559) in the process of Appeal of Right, and acting in the capacity of Crown Attorney, did fraudulently(Legal Fraud) file their RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(07-02559), at the the Newmarket SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Registrar under the false pretense that he have completed a legal service to the Plaintiff when this was not the case for the same service; furthermore, the aforesaid was done to deny the Applicant of his Legal Rights in contravention of of Section. 131 subsection (2) and Section. 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[256] The Plaintiff alleges that, Assistant Crown Attorney(Mr. Costain), misled the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, for the wilful purpose of defeating the course of justice or at the minimum, perverting it; Mr. Costain asserts that “ There is no air of reality to the various allegations of Charter Breaches by the police” by the Applicant, in contravention of Section 12.3.2 of The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK, Rule 4 clause(d) of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT, and in contravention of Section. 131, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[257] The Plaintiff alleges that, Assistant Crown Attorney(Mr. Tait), misled the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, for the wilful purpose of defeating the course of justice or at the minimum, perverting it; Mr. Costain asserts that “ There is no air of reality to the various allegations of Crown misconduct or Charter breaches” by the Applicant, in contravention of Section 12.3.2 of The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK, Rule 4 clause(d) of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT, and in contravention of Section. 131, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[258] The Plaintiff alleges that on or about the 2^nd day of October in the year 2009 at the City of Newmarket in the Regional Municipality of York, Mr. Costain and Mr. Tait did, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in the Right of Ontario, in addition to having carriage and control, while acting in the capacity of Crown’s Counsel for the Plaintiff’s matter(07-02559) in the process of Appeal of Right, and acting in the capacity of Crown Attorney, did fraudulently file their RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(07-02559), at the the Newmarket SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Registrar under the false pretense that he have completed a legal service to the Plaintiff when this was not the case for the same service, in contravention of Section 12.3.2 of The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK, Rule 4 clause(d) of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT, and in contravention of of Section. 131 subsection (2) and Section. 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Mr. Matthew Asma:

[259] The Plaintiff alleges that on 13^th of December 2010, in the Inmate Appeal Court (court room 10), at the right hand side of the last row, Mr. Asma orally assured Applicant that you will be disclosing a transcription hard copy of EXHIBIT 2. In short, a transcription of EXHIBIT 2 CD-07-70285.

[260] The Plaintiff alleges that Crown(Mr. Asma) fail to do that which he promise; disclosed hard copies of “EXHIBIT 2, CD 07-70285”. From ,EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL, Ontario Court of Justice - Newmarket, Before Mr Justice J. F. Kenkel, YORK REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, Trial Commencing January 18, 2008, File # 07-02559-00, REGINA VS. Wayne Ferron.

[261] The Plaintiff further allege that he gave is explicit consent with conditions to the Crown(Mr. Asma ), after the Crown(Ms. Stuart), formally request the Plaintiff consent in her October 15, 2010 22 page 9 months investigative report. The Applicant's conditions for the crown to examine the Exhibit was on the the following conditions; Mr. Asma written articulated reason and justification of what happened to the Crown’s copy of these said exhibits, to review the Mc Neil Package on-site in the Crown Attorney Office. This was never done, even though the EXHIBIT at issue originated or disclosed by the Crown and was subsequently filed by the Applicant.

HISTORY OF EXHIBIT 2, CD-07-70285:

[262] The Plaintiff alleges that on December 13, 2011, in addition to fulfillment of requisition made at the lower Courts for EXHIBIT 2, the Applicant again requested a certified Transcription of EXHIBIT 2 on page 104 to 107 (REQUISITION FOR EXHIBIT 2 TRANSCRIPTION), in his response to the Crown’s 22 page response. Mr. Asma for the Crown also confirmed orally to the Applicant that they would be disclosing a Transcription of EXHIBIT 2 TO THE APPLICANT. Similarly, the Applicant requested a certified Transcription of EXHIBIT 2 on the December 22, 2011 under TAB 11(AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT) on page 15 to 16 IN HIS MOTION FOR DIRECTION.

[263] The Plaintiff alleges that on March 8, 2011, the Applicant served on the Crown(Mr. Asma) a REQUISITION, requisitioning a certified Transcription of EXHIBIT 2.

[264] The Plaintiff alleges that on March 8, 2011, the Applicant received a reply letter dated March 4, 2011 from the Crown’s disclosure containing uncertified photo copy of transcription of the “DVD recording of the 911 call...” and uncertified photo copy of transcription of the “DVD recording of the radio transmissions of York Regional Police...”, which were both produce on June 22, 2008.

[265] The Plaintiff alleges that on or bout Wednesday, March 23, 2011, the Applicant served on the Crown(Mr. Asma) a second REQUISITION, requisitioning two certified copy of “ EXHIBIT 2, CD 07-70285”, pursuant to EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL, Ontario Court of Justice - Newmarket, Before Mr Justice J. F. Kenkel, YORK REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, Trial Commencing January 18, 2008, File # 07-02559-00, REGINA VS. Wayne Ferron.

[266] The Plaintiff further alleges that the, EXHIBIT 2 CD 07-70285 contains one file, so their should only be one document, in-addition the EXHIBIT 2 CD 07-70285 is not a DVD. The applicant further alleges that Mr. Asma did-not have carriage and control of matter C51190 nor matter 07-02559 on or about June 22, 2008.

[267] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 27^th of July 2009, the issue of mislabeled EXHIBITS and MISSING EXHIBIT was a major contended issue at the lower courts. The Plaintiff further alleges that on July 27, 2009 it was confirmed by the Honourable Justice Boswell of the Ontario Superior Court Justice at the Newmarket location, at least in the Applicant’s interpretation as a witness;

[268] Firstly, there is a mistake in the EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL for Information 07-02559, so the Plaintiff further alleges that the missing material evidence which should be listed between exhibit one and exhibit three. The missing material evidence the 9-1-1 CD for GO 2007-70285.

[269] Secondly, there is a second mistake in the EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL for Information 07-02559, so the Plaintiff further alleges that exhibit two is mislabeled. Exhibit two should have been labeled “York Regional Police Services Transmission Dispatch log for GO 2007-70285 CD” instead of “9-1-1 CD for GO 2007-70285”.

[270] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 27^th of July 2009, that Justice Boswell ordered the Applicant to file and serve a copy of his copy of the missing exhibit (9-1-1 CD for GO 2007-70285), material evidence which had vanished from under the Crown’s protection, the Crown’s stewardship, and could not be retrieve by the prosecutor for months.

[271] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 27^th of July 2009, the facts surrounding the disclosing of April 28, 2008 Application Transcript(07-02559) and Mr. Westgate’s(allegations of Crown Attorney’s Legal Fraud); the questionable actions of the said transcript disclosing on July 21, 2009 by Mr. Westgate, was put on the record before the learned Superior Court Judge, the Honourable Justice Boswell determined the said issue not to be relevant.

[272] The Plaintiff further alleges that on the 27^th of July 2009, the Honourable Justice Boswell issued a Court order against the Applicant to file All his copies of evidence; evidence deemed to be the Crown’s responsibility by law and the Supreme Court of Canada.

[273] The Plaintiff further alleges that on the 29^th of June 2009, the Honourable Presiding Justice had directed the Crown, to disclosed copies of the said evidence to the Applicant on at least four occasion (May 4, 2009 to July 20, 2009), in addition to The Honourable Justice Howden ordering the same after he declared the Applicant indigent under cross examination and determined that the Applicant’s unheard outstanding MOTION FOR DIRECTION, from May 04, 2009 “would not be heard.”

[274] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 27^th of July 2009, the Honourable Justice Boswell asserted that the Crown(Mr. Tait), will ensure that playable audio equipment is available to the court at the Hearing of the Appeal. This was never done.

[275] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 4^th of May 2009, that the Honourable Justice Bryant directed the Crown to assist the Applicant in obtaining a copy of a video tape and a cd(EXHIBIT 2). This was never done by the Crown(Mr. Westgate).

[276] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 29^th of June 2009, that the Honourable Presiding Justice ordered the Crown to obtaining and providing to the Plaintiff a Transcript of the trial proceedings on 28 April, 2008; a copying of Ex.6B; a copy of a communication tape(EXHIBIT 2). This was never done by the Crown(Mr. Westgate).

[277] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 20^th of July 2009, the Plaintiff filed and served a formal requisition on the Crown at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, under the title REQUISITION FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559). The Plaintiff further allege that he explicitly requested a certified copy of EXHIBIT 2 GO 07-70285 for Information NO: 07-02559 and Information NO: 07-02500, in clear and concise language. This has never been done at the lower courts or at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[278] The Plaintiff alleges that on February 7, 2009, he was called to be spoken to in the inmate Court at THE COURT OF APPEAL. He further alleges that, he advised the said Court that the January 18, 2008 Transcript was not certified and constituted theft by reading the disclaimer out loud in open court as follows;

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

[279] DOC I, January 18, 2008 Transcript (07-02559).

1. Their is no certifying signature in blue ink by Fiona Dower, [RULE 40.06(11)].

2. Their is no Transcript order date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

3. Their is no Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

4. Their is no notification of Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)];

[280] There was other discrepancies with other Transcripts for my Appeal, which brings into question their certification. The other transcripts are;

[281] DOC III, MAY 9, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (07-02559).

1. The certifying signature signed by Wendy Campbell on May 17/10 is in blue ink.

2. Their is no Transcript order date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

3. Their is no Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

4. Their is no notification of Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

[282] DOC IV, JUNE 17, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (07-02559).

1. The certifying signature signed by Patty Verni on May 17/10 is in blue ink.

2. Their is no Transcript order date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

3. Their is no Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

4. Their is no notification of Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].

[283] DOC IX, OCTOBER 14, 2009 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (07-02559).

1. The certifying signature signed by Tricia Marinzel on an unknown date in blue ink.

2. Transcript order date indicated is .... October 27, 2010.

3. Transcript completion date indicated is .... December 4, 2010.

4. Their is no notification of Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)];

5. Their is no date for Transcript approved for release indicated, [RULE 8(14) & 40(11)].

[284] The Plaintiff further allege, that there has not been a “COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT COMPLETION” sent to the Applicant pursuant to RULE 40.06(11) and RULE 8(16) until after the Applicant’s Appeal to the Information and Privacy Commission.

[285] I have formally requested “COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT COMPLETION” from the Ministry of Justice, the Crown Attorney’s Office under the freedom of information Act, but the said Ministry has refused to disclosed. However Mr. Asma (Crown), sent a letter stating that the Crown has paid for the Transcripts in full and the Court Reporter merely forgot to sign it. Well this is suspect!

[286] It is highly unlikely that A Professionally Trained and Professionally qualified Court Reporter would forget to sign five Transcripts of evidence to be used at a high Scholarly Court (COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO), who’s name graces the pages of many important case law, given the importance placed on prudence, the stringent constraints on errors and the very high reliability placed on evidence. This is peoples lives we are dealing with and the all so important public confidence in the Administration of Justice, which the Judicial System and the Criminal process rely heavily on.

[287] Again, Five Transcripts, uncertified without even taking DOC III, DOC IV, and DOC IX into consideration; the Applicant personally checked the filed copies in the COURT OF APPEAL RECORD’s possession, plus his copy and his copy of the Crown’s copy disclosed by Ms. Joanne Stuart as directed by Justice Watt’s August 27, 2010 Endorsement.

[288] Furthermore, their are three other Transcripts besides DOC I whose certification is in question (DOC III, DOC IV, and DOC IX).

[289] The Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 17, 2011 he received a letter from Madam Anne-Marie Santini(Program Analyst) notifying him of access being granted to the Crown’s copy of the COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION for C51190, byway of the Freedom of Information Commission((MAG 2011-00449/PA-11-170).

[290] The Plaintiff further alleges that a total of five copies of five CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION for nine filed and served certified copies of TRANSCRIPTS OF EVIDENCE(C51190) disclosed to his person. So what happened to the other four copies of COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION(C51190) for the other four TRANSCRIPTS OF EVIDENCE(C51190) filed under the pretense of being duly certified in accordance with parliamentary legislation?

[291] The Plaintiff further alleges, that he did not receive copies of COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETION(C51190) for DOC I, DOC III, and DOC IX from the Ministry of the Attorney General Freedom of Information & Privacy; these said documents are filed certified TRANSCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE(C51190) by the Crown at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, wherein Mr. Asma had carriage and control of the matter(C51190) in the capacity as Crown council at the time

MS. JOANNE STUART:

[292] The Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Joanne Stuart damage the Applicant’s matter(C51190) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO by impeding him in fulfilling the requirements for perfecting his appeal(C51190).

[293] The Plaintiff allege that the Crown’s(Ms Joanne Stuart), seize the Applicant’s Freedom of Information Request addressed to the “HEAD” of the Ministry of Justice and failed to forward it to the rightful recipient in contravention of Section 25. of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. furthermore the Applicant was forced to produce and serve a replacement request by the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, for no fault of his own.

[294] The Plaintiff allege that the Crown’s(Ms Joanne Stuart), initial position on the 27^th of January 2010 on the production of the Transcripts of evidence, was that it would take a long time, for the locating and transcribing of all the Transcripts being requested by the Applicant. Moreover, the Crown incorrectly believed without investigation, that the identification, transcription of recordings and production of Transcripts would take up to two years to two and a half years.

[295] The Plaintiff allege that the April 28, 2008, TRANSCRIPT, for an abuse of process hearing before the honourable Justice Kenkel, has an order date of May 14, 2010 and a completion date of May 15, 2010. This fact is contrary to Ms. Stuart’s assertions in advising the COURT OF APPEAL that it would take 2 years to 2 1/2 years to find and produce TRANSCRIPTS OF EVIDENCE. Most of the transcripts the Crown order more than four months after Ms. Joanne Stuart was tasked to do so by the COURT OF APPEAL, took a very short time to produced and complete; the April 28, 2008, TRANSCRIPT is just one of many.

DOC III, APRIL 28, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT(07-02500/07-02559).

1. The certifying signature signed by Joanne Knaap on May 15, 2010.

2. Transcript order date indicated is .................................... May 14, 2010.

3. Transcript completion date indicated is ........................... May 15, 2010.

4. Notification of Transcript completion is .............................May 17, 2010.

[296] The Plaintiff allege that on the 27^th of January 2010, the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, heard the Applicant’s Motion for Direction Application (M38387), with Ms. Joanne Stuart as Crown’s Counsel. The Presiding Justice ordered the Crown to pay for, file and serve all the necessary Transcripts.

[297] The Plaintiff further allege that he requested in his MOTION FOR DIRECTION (M38387), application, a court appointed, CASE MANAGEMENT OFFICER, to oversee and prudently manage the Appeal. He felt that this would optimize the efficiency of the Appeal process and the use of scarce court resources, while avoiding the abuses of the process, similar to the ones he experience first hand at Newmarket Courthouse. Which would go a far way in insuring a fair and equitable Appeal or access to the ends of justice. For some reason this was not implemented!

[298] The Plaintiff allege that the MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE(M38706), for C51190 was adjourned without a returnable date. In short, it was indefinitely adjourned. Which is what the Crown originally wanted, off the record in its private discussions with the Applicant. Even though the Crown only started work on matter C51190 on the same day M38706 was heard. The same Motion(M38706) was later closed without notification to the Applicant.

[299] The Plaintiff further allege that, MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE(M38706) was indefinitely adjourned without the disclosing of outstanding disclosure owed to the my person and denied by the respective Crowns throughout 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 in violation of the Crowns Directive, FEDERAL PROSECUTORS DESKBOOK, THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS article 14 fair trial rights and the Charter.

[300] The Plaintiff further allege, that there is gross negligence in the accounting of Court Material(07-02559) and a wanton disregard for material evidence in the same matter from Newmarket Courthouse to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[301] The Plaintiff further allege, that original EXHIBIT LIST(07-02559) cannot be found at the Newmarket Courthouse or the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO(Records), it has simply vanished; there is no account of Court Materials(07-02559), transferred to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR OTARIO(Records), the MATERIAL TRANSFER LIST is simple blank with a statement to refer to the EXHIBIT LIST(07-02559), the original of which has been lost and cannot be found. So, there is no way to know if any material has been misplaced or is missing or if all court material is accounted for. This is in addition to Exhibit 2 being mislabeled and another Exhibit going missing or there has been a failure to include it on EXHIBIT LIST(07-02559).

[302] The Plaintiff further allege, that his contact person at Newmarket Courthouse is Lisa Stock(A/Supervisor of Court Operations Criminal Court Services). Court materials for file 07-02559 was transferred on Nov 5, 2009 from the NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE to the COURT OF APPEAL. There was a TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT(S. 2605) faxed on November 09, 2011 at 16:42 for MATERIAL/EXHIBITS for file# 07-02559.

[303] The Plaintiff further allege, that on the 5^th of November 2009 NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE, Superior Court of Justice, Criminal Court Office, Huguette Thomson of THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, sent all the necessary court documents(File# 4911 998 07 02559 00), that was requested for the Appeal(C51190).

[304] The Plaintiff further allege, that on the 9^th of November 2009 there was a TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT, for the same released information. Kristen Smith from NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE, released the original EXHIBITS to THE COURT OF APPEAL. The original documentation accounting the court transferred materials is completely blank with the exception of file numbers, dates and signatures. When I asked on more than one occasion why the “MATERIAL/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST” is blank.

[305] The Plaintiff further allege, that at both the Newmarket Courthouse and the Records of the Court of Appeal, that no one helping in the care of the relevant court material could give reasonable justification for the aforesaid. Further inquired as to how anyone would be able to tell if court materials was missing or added to with a blank “MATERIAL/EXHIBITS TRANSFER LIST”, no relevant person could give the applicant an answer; this is a very week and questionable area in the Criminal Process with in the context of the Applicant matter(C51190).

[306] The Plaintiff further allege, that there is no original document for EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL(07-02599), at the Newmarket Courthouse or the COURT OF APPEAL(Records); at least none could be found upon his many request in writing and verbally format. The Certified copy of EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL(07-02599), the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar issued to the Applicant on April 12, 2011 is a certified copy of an uncertified-photo-copy(none original), of a missing original Court document; it should be self-evident that this is fraud, but the relevant Court Clerk of the Registrar did the said action anyway with the permission of her superior.

[307] The Plaintiff further allege, that on the 22^nd of February 2011, I served on the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar a REQUISITION(07-02500/07-02559), for typed copies of COURT ORDERS AND ENDORSEMENTS in addition to two certified copies of EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL(07-02559); there was a failure to complete his requisition.

[308] On the 7^th of April 2011, he served on the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Registrar a REQUISITION TO REGISTRAR FOR ITEMIZED LIST OF MATERIAL FROM THE LOWER COURTS(C51190).

[309] The Plaintiff further allege, that on the 12^th of April 2011, he served on the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar a REQUISITION(07-02500/07-02559), for typed copies of COURT ORDERS AND ENDORSEMENTS in addition to two certified copies of EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL(07-02559), the prosecution’s REASONABLE PROSPECT OF CONVICTION(07-02500) for March 28, 2007, and the prosecution’s REASONABLE PROSPECT OF CONVICTION(07-02559) for March 28, 2007; in order to aid the Newmarket Registrar and make things easier for them, he included in the requisition a copy of all the COURT ORDERS AND ENDORSEMENTS the Applicant was requesting to be typed. The Registrar from the same Court refuse or fail to produce legible copies of the said Court materials on more than one occasion?

[310] The Plaintiff further allege, that he insisted on the completion of his said requisition and strongly argued on the important of the Applicant’s request to the fairness and proper legal administration of his Appeal at the COURT OF APPEAL(C51190) in addition to having the application of his rights administered to. Upon the refusal to complete his Requisition, he verbally notified the registrar that he will be forced to try to obtain legible endorsements byway of the FREEDOM AND INFORMATION ACT, but there is no jurisdiction under this said act with respect to the Courts. This is when Lisa Stock(A/Supervisor of Court Operations Criminal Court Services), of the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar, gave the Plaintiff her contact information and told me to “go ahead!” As though the aforementioned questionable actions was legally and morally justified.

[311] The Plaintiff further allege, that In the face of the blatant refusal of the ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (CENTRAL EAST), REGISTRAR TO TRANSCRIBE(TYPE), unreadable ENDORSEMENT of the same Court; the Crown Attorney General(Madam Kim Twohig )served on his person and filed at the ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (CENTRAL WEST), unofficial typed copies of The Honourable Justice Boswell’s endorsements. Furthermore, Crown’s counsel(Mr. Matthew Asma), has filed typed version of Justice Boswell’s Endorsement(07-02559, in APEAL BOOK(C51190). Yet the Plaintiff is denied access to the same quality of documents upon formal request; in accordance with his personal knowledge, and his reasonable belief, and he does believe that he has been denied fairness, equity and due process of law.

[312] The Plaintiff further that the Crown’s(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s) position on disclosure issues, for disclosing of information to identify and call Officer Y to give material evidence for matter C51190/07-02559 is articulated in the following manner by Crown counsel;

“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...To clarify, what Justice Kenkel ordered the Crown to obtain was documentation relating to why and/or how you were shackled only. You did not revisit that issue for the remainder of the trial and so I assume that this information was properly provided. As a result the Crown will not be seeking the non existent video or other disclosure relating to the female officer working in the courthouse cells on March 28, 2007.”

[313] The Plaintiff further alleges, that Ms. Joanne Stuart’s assumption is false, the information in question, indicated by her in the above statement was never provided and is still outstanding.

[314] The Plaintiff further alleges that the Crown’s(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s) position on disclosure issues, for disclosing of the conversation between Officer Monk(1399) and the York regional Police Services Dispatch within the context of “OH HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT....JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY”, immediately after the arrest of the Plaintiff; the Applicant further Alleges that the said Prosecutors position is articulated in the following manner;

“The York Regional Police radio transmissions obtained by the trial Crown have been disclosed to you. While those transmissions do not capture Constable Monk’s communications with dispatch, the dispatch logs, which you received in disclosure and filed as exhibit 4 at trial, do capture those communications. This exhibit will be contained in the Application Record/Appeal Book. It is the Crown’s position that the absence of this part of the dispatch recordings did not prevent you from making full answer and defence as you had the dispatch logs. In view of this, it is the Crown’s position that there is nothing further to disclose.”

[315] The Plaintiff further alleges, that Ms. Joanne Stuart’s above stated position is miss guided and not forthcoming in addition to containing fallacies. The Applicant further alleges that, the information(transmission CD) in question, indicated by her in the above statement was in fact rescinded by the Crown(possible Mr. Billington) or set back to the York Regional Police Services without notice to the Applicant on 13 April 2007. Furthermore, a replacement Transmission CD was disclosed later, which could not be played on Newmarket Courthouse electronic equipment, and was inferior in listing quality when played from a laptop; in-addition to Assistant Crown Attorney Ms. Goodier misleading the court on behalf of the Officer-In-Charge(Broughton 1079) with in the context of the reason for the statement “OH HE LOST ALRIGHT...JUST IN A UNIQUE WAY”

[316] The Plaintiff further alleges that the Crown’s(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s) position on disclosure issues, for disclosing of information to identify and call Informants information 07-02500/07-02559 and their respective notes, so they may be called to give material evidence for matter C51190/07-02559 is articulated in the following manner by crown counsel;

“(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. 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.”

[317] The Plaintiff further alleges, that Ms. Joanne Stuart’s above stated position on or about October 15, 2010 is miss guided and not forthcoming in addition to containing fallacies and brings into question integrity and credibility. The Applicant further alleges that evidence to the contrary of her stated position above was disclosed more than four years after the originating occurrence on or about the 26^th of April 2011, from the York Regional Police Services under the reference number REF.#11-0247 for Incident # 07-70285, under the new Chief of Police; Chief of Police Eric Jolliffe, whom replaced the outgoing chief who resigned on or about the 12^th of December 2010 and is formally known as Chief of Police Armand P. La Barge.

[318] The Plaintiff further alleges, that the inferred disclosure from the above statement on disclosure was-not disclosed by the Crown(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s), which the Applicant has been begging for disclosure of right for years; but byway of a relentless Appeal to the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, for a Freedom of information request for the disclosure in question.

[319] The Plaintiff further alleges that the Crown’s(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s) position on disclosure issues, for disclosing of The Documentation for the Search of your Work Vehicle, is articulated in the following manner by crown counsel;

“(8) The Documentation for the Search of your Work Vehicle

The evidence of Constable Monk indicates that he searched your vehicle incident to your arrest. You already have Constable Monk’s notes as part of disclosure. The evidence is that in any event nothing illegal was found in your vehicle and that nothing at all was seized as a result of this search. Even if further documentation exists, it is the Crown’s position that it is not relevant. It is the Crown’s position that there is nothing further to disclose in relation to this search incident to arrest.”

[320] The Plaintiff further alleges, that Crown(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s), above statement on the Crown’s position is not transparent nor forthcoming and brings into question her integrity and credibility. Furthermore, the allege unlawful search does not conform to Section 117.02 of the Criminal Code of Canada, while violating Section 8. of the Charter.

[321] The Plaintiff further alleges, that the inferred disclosure from the above statement on disclosure was-not disclosed by the Crown(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s), which the Applicant has been begging for disclosure of right for years; but byway of a relentless Appeal to the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, for a Freedom of information request for the disclosure in question.

[322] The Plaintiff further alleges that the Crown’s(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s) position on disclosure issues, for disclosing of The Name of the Female Officer in the Sally Port(OFFIER X), whom yelled “Blood” and also extracted the Applicant from Officer Brown’s Cruiser in the prone position, is articulated in the following manner by Crown counsel;

“(10) The Name of the Female Officer in the Sally Port

I appreciate that you believe this officer is at fault for causing you to hit the concrete floor in the sally port. The evidence of Crown witnesses at trial was that you refused to move on your own and you refused to speak to anyone after your arrest. As a result you had to be carried to and from the cruiser, including at the station. The booking videotape, including of the sally port, and still photographs were made exhibits and are available for review. It is unclear, other than possibly for the purposes of civil litigation, what relevance this officer’s name has to your appeal. It appears that this is the first time you have requested this information. It is the Crown’s position that this information will not be disclosed.”

[323] The Plaintiff further alleges, that the inferred disclosure from the above statement on nondisclosure, was-not disclosed by the Crown(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s), which the Applicant has been begging for disclosure of right for years; but byway of a relentless Appeal to the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, for a Freedom of information request for the disclosure in question.

[324] The Plaintiff further alleges that the Crown’s(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s) position on disclosure issues, for disclosing of , The original Drugs/Alcohol subjective assessment by T.A. Patterson and a certified copy of all the questions used by Marguerite Campbell BSW., is articulated in the following manner by Crown counsel;

“(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.

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 counseling 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.”

[325] The Plaintiff further alleges, that Crown(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s), above statement on the Crown’s position is not transparent nor forthcoming and brings into question integrity and credibility for the following reasons; the Plaintiff has been called a crack head for no apparent reason, the Plaintiff has been inferred to have consumed drugs, officer Broughton has slandered/libel the Applicant byway of filed police report to be accessed by the Federal Government, that the Plaintiff have consumed drug, and the Plaintiff have been unlawfully arrested while trying to file an information for assault in-addition to being unlawfully imprisoned in a mentally institution and having blood taken and tested for drugs without the express permission of the Applicant.

[326] The Plaintiff further alleges, that the inferred disclosure from the above statement on disclosure was-not disclosed by the Crown(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s), which the Applicant has been begging for disclosure of right for years; byway of a relentless Appeal to the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, for a Freedom of information request for the disclosure in question.

[327] The Plaintiff further alleges that the Crown’s(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s) position on disclosure issues, for disclosing of , The original Drugs/Alcohol subjective assessment by T.A. Patterson and a certified copy of all the questions used by Marguerite Campbell BSW., is articulated in the following manner by Crown counsel;

“I note that the Application Record/Appeal Book can only be completed once the transcript issues are fully resolved.{...} If you and the Crown are unable to reach an agreement about disclosure issues and transcript issues that you have raised, a date will need to be set in Inmate/In-person Appeals Court (for self-represented individuals) to argue these issues before the Court of Appeal. If we are in agreement on all of these issues, the Crown will then be able to finalize the Application Record/Appeal Book, serve you with a copy of that Record, and file the Record with the Court. Once that is done, you will be able to proceed with your application for leave to appeal.”

[328] The Plaintiff further alleges, that he holds the Crown(Ms. Joanne Stuart’s) to it’s words, which binds it in public confidence truthfulness and integrity and as a representation of its high office. The Plaintiff further allege, that aforesaid in the Crown’s above statement was never done regardless to the relentless years of begging of the Plaintiff for it to be effected, in the face of mounting disclosure contended issues; despite having a fiduciary relationship with the Administration of Justice, in addition to the MARTIN REPORT, firmly encouraging honesty, honour and integrity, in addition to exalting equity in the criminal process as the singular most important thing in the initial phase of the criminal process.

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

“PRINCIPLES

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

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

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

[329] The Plaintiff alleges that on the the 26^th of April 2011, from the York Regional Police Services under the reference number REF.#11-0247 for Incident # 07-70285 which occurred on March 27/28, 2007; furthermore, the Applicant have been prudently requesting the same disclosed information as outstanding disclosure owed to him, from the Crown since the year 2007. The Plaintiff has been begging the Crown for disclosure of right for over four years. He received the following evidence four years late under the new appointed Chief of Police; Chief of Police Eric Jolliffe, whom replaced the outgoing chief who resigned on or about the 12^th of December 2010 and is formally known as Chief of Police Armand P. La Barge;

1. Constable William Hird #6058 willsay notebook entries;

2. Constable Joe Willmets #974 notebook entries;

3. Constable Larone #1418 willsay and notebook entries;

4. copy of information 07-02500;

5. copy of YRP April 13, 2007 rescinded CD for Incident #07-70285 by the Crown;

6. and confirmation that their is no information or documentation on the questionable search of his vehicle exist;

after more than four years of begging the Crown for disclosure of right, after filing Freedom of Information request, and after Appealing the same Information request. The Crown have always maintained the position that their is nothing of relevance left to disclosed.

[330] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 9^th of June, 2010 the Applicant served on the “HEAD” of the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, furthermore, the Crown has indicated being in receipt of the said document by stamping my copy with their official stamp. The plaintiff had made the same request for outstanding pending disclosures from 2007/2008/2009/2010 to the Crown(Ms. Joanne Stuart) to no avail; she did not even respond to the many request made vicariously through her to the Crown. The Plaintiff also asked on many occasions if he should seek the disclosure by other method, since the Crown refused to confirm or deny its position on outstanding disclosure. The Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General Criminal Law Division, PRACTICE MEMORANDUM(2009) articulates on page 3 and 4;

“1. General Principles

a. Legal Duty of the Crown

Disclosure is a legal duty, and is not a matter of prosecutorial discretion.1 Crown counsel must make disclosure according to law. As a general principle, Crown counsel have an ongoing responsibility to disclose all relevant material in the possession or control of the Crown, whether inculpatory or exculpatory. This duty is subject to Crown counsel’s discretion to refuse to disclose information that is privileged or clearly irrelevant.²

When the Crown provides full disclosure in a timely manner and the defence uses it diligently, the administration of justice benefits as a whole.³ Full and timely disclosure:

• Helps to guarantee the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence;⁴

• Helps to prevent miscarriages of justice;⁵

• Promotes the accused’s section 11(b) Charter rights;

• Promotes the early resolution of cases, which benefits victims and accused persons; and

• Promotes the early resolution of non-contentious and time-consuming issues in

preliminary hearings or trials.

{...}

Where Crown counsel proposes to provide, withhold, or restrict disclosure for reasons that do not accord with this Practice Memorandum, Counsel must have the approval of his/her Crown Attorney and the Director of Crown Operations for his/her region. When refusing to disclose material, Crown counsel should offer an explanation in writing to the defence. Crown counsel must exercise the discretionary powers associated with these aspects of disclosure honestly and in good faith.

Crown counsel should consult with his/her Crown Attorney before making any decision to delay the legally required provision of disclosure in the possession or control of the Crown. Crown counsel must never delay disclosure for purely tactical reasons. However, the provision of disclosure material may be delayed to protect a witness or complete an investigation.⁸”

(Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General Criminal Law Division, PRACTICE MEMORANDUM, June 11, 2009)

[331] The Plaintiff further alleges, that on the 9^th of June, 2010 he made a formal freedom of information request to the the “HEAD” of the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, along with a $5 check(336770 for acct: 1485415), in accordance with Section 24. and Section 25 of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act; after a 30 days of no formal reply to the said freedom of information request, the applicant filed an Appeal to the Freedom Commission.

[332] The Plaintiff further alleges, that on or about the 16^th of August, 2010 the Information and Privacy Commission(Ms. Tanya Kienapple), sent the Applicant a letter advising him in the following manner;

“I have contacted the Freedom of Information Coordinator for the Ministry about your appeal. The ministry has advised me that, as of August 5, 2010, it does not have any record of your freedom of information request pursuant to the Act. However, the Ministry will ensure it processes your request should you send a request, along with the required $5 fee made payable to the “Minister of Finance”...”

[333] The Plaintiff further alleges, that Ms. Joanne Stewart had seized the Freedom of Information request and $5 check address to the “HEAD” of the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL without lawful excuse, even-though it was-not address to her. Furthermore, when this was made an issue before the Honourable Justice Watt, she misled the COURT OF APPEAL OF ONTARIO, while perverting the course of justice in securing a court order against the Applicant while falsely asserting and informing the said Court that she had already returned the $5 check (336770 for acct: 1485415), when this was not the case; she also failed to mention the whereabouts of the corresponding freedom of information request documentation not addressed to her , but seized by her.

[334] The Plaintiff further alleges, that on or about the 11^th of October, 2010 the Applicant served on the “HEAD” of the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, a replacement Freedom of Information request as directed by the Freedom of Information and Privacy Commission with a new $5 check(101) and Ms. Ruth Maillard of the MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL; the said document carried the title “REQUEST FOR PENDING INFORMATION OWED TO THE ACCUSED BY THE CROWN AND YRP”.

[335] The Plaintiff further alleges, that he was forced to file another information request with a new $5.00 fee, which in essence gave the Government Institution an additional 30 more days, even though the failure to process the initial freedom of information request was no fault of his own. He was even forced to pay $25.00 for my appeal to the IPC against the Crown’s Office, instead of the $10.00 fee.

[336] The Plaintiff further alleges, that this is in his reasonable belief, cause damage to his credibility and diminished his integrity, and increase his cost for the Freedom of Information and Privacy appeal; which caused further delay, caused unnecessary aggravation of his person and impeded the disclosure of the said information request which is crucial to furthering his arguments at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[337] It is his the Plaintiff reasonable belief and he does believe, that it was in this context which the presiding justice for the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO was deceptively led into granting the request of the Crown, represented by Ms. Joanne Stuart, while dismissing the Applicant’s, Motion for MANDAMUS with CERTIORARI (M38706) returnable on the 27^th of August 2010. In addition, to matter being unilaterally placed into the inmate appeal Court with out the Plaintiff consent or personal input, while Ms. Joanne Stuart was misleading the Court with false information on a contested issues.

OCCURRENCE No.: 2007-70285

PR 09-198646/PR 11-268181/PR 11-268834:

[338] The Plaintiff alleges that the arrest for Information 07-02500/07-02559 was an unlawful arrest.

[339] The Plaintiff alleges that Court Security Officer William Hird(6058), not only committed perjury in effecting a false oath while filing Information 07-02500, but he also obstructed justice by using a false name and signing the Jurat with a different signature while acting in the capacity of a witness when he was not, in contravention of Section 137,and Section 131, subsection (1), Section 139, subsection (2). of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[340] The Plaintiff alleges that the Warrantless search for Information 07-02500/07-02559 is neither a lawful Search nor does the search conform to Section 117.02 of the Criminal code of Canada; in addition to being a blatant violation of Section 8. of the Charter while trespassing to chattel without lawful excuse with a blatant disregard for the Applicant’s right to privacy.

[341] The Plaintiff alleges that Information 07-02500 is neither legal nor valid; but voidable.

[342] The Plaintiff alleges that Information 07-02559 is neither legal nor valid; but voidable.

[343] The Applicant further alleges that Information 07-02559 cannot rely on Information 07-02500 for process byway of Section 523 subsection (1.1); furthermore, Information 07-02500 is not only voidable and exceeds the legal constraints of Section 523 of the Criminal Code of Canada, but it was officially withdrawn by Ms. Goodier(Crown Counsel) on January 18, 2008, on the commencement of the trial before Justice Kenkel. In any event, this said section of the Criminal Code of Canada was never invoked by the Crown.

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...

[344] The Applicant alleges that Information 07-02559 is neither legal nor valid nor found process of it own; furthermore, it violates Section 505 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is in-fact voidable.

[345] The Applicant alleges that the prosecution against the Plaintiff byway of Information 07-02559 is wanting of Parliamentary support and runs contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada; the Applicant further alleges that the same prosecution is a malicious prosecution with the relevant Crown Counsels acting independently of approved Parliamentary authority.

[346] The Plaintiff alleges that the Trial Justice overseeing the prosecution against the Plaintiff byway of Information 07-02559, was acting independently of Parliamentary Authority, since Information 07-02500 and 07-02559 failed to impart to him the necessary jurisdiction over the allege charges in Information 07-02559. Furthermore, Information 07-02500 and 07-02559 does not conform to the necessary or sufficient requirements of Section 504, 505, 507, 508, 523 and 540 of the Criminal Code of Canada, for issuing process.

[347] The Plaintiff alleges that Officer Monk(1399), objective reason or reasonable cause to arrest, did effect an unlawful arrest in contravention of the Section 10 clause (a) and clause (b) of the Charter and Section 495 subsection(2) clause (b) and clause (c) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant’s life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.

Information 09-14407

[348] The Plaintiff alleges that Information 09-14407 is neither legal nor valid; but voidable.

[349] The Plaintiff alleges that the prosecution against the Plaintiff byway of Information Information 09-14407 is wanting of Parliamentary support and runs contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

[350] The Plaintiff further alleges that the same prosecution is a malicious prosecution with the relevant Crown Counsels acting independently of approved Parliamentary authority.

[351] The Plaintiff alleges that Information 07-02500, Information 07-02559, and Information 09-14407 does not conform to the necessary or sufficient requirements of Section 504, 505, 507, 508, 523 and 540 of the Criminal Code of Canada, for issuing process.

OCCURRENCE No.: 2007-70285

[352] The Plaintiff alleges that, OCCURRENCE No.: 07-70285 has as it’s foundation Systemic Racism/Racial Profiling; in addition to being fraudulently investigated and perforated by criminal activity of THE YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, and abuse of the Criminal Process by relevant Prosecutors.

OCCURRENCE PR 09-198646

[353] The Plaintiff alleges that, OCCURRENCE PR 09-198646 is frivolous while PROBATION and PAROLE actively sought after malicious prosecution of the Applicant at a time when the PROBATION ORDER 07-02559 was completed without incident and the Probation Officer advised the Plaintiff that he is not required of him to attend anymore schedule probation meetings; in addition to assaulting the Plaintiff and actively seeking to Profile the Applicant as a mentally disease individual long after the Probation period had expired.

OCCURRENCE PR 11-268181

[354] The Plaintiff alleges that, Officer Pekeski(2261) and a PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, representative officer disclose to the Applicant a false name of Perkins for Officer 2261 for the willful purpose of obstructing justice.

[355] The Plaintiff alleges that, OCCURRENCE PR 11-268181, on the 25/26 day of August in the year 2011 PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES Officers did, commit assault and aggravated assault against the Plaintiff without effecting a lawful arrest or having lawful excuse; in addition to theft by BAILIFF for property the Plaintiff had colour of right to.

OCCURRENCE PR 11-268834:

[356] The Plaintiff alleges that, OCCURRENCE PR 11-268834, on the 26^th day of August in the year 2011 by PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES Officers, while trying to effect the laying of an information against Officer Pekeski(2261) for assaults in OCCURRENCE PR 11-268181, in the Justice of the Peace office in the intake office.

[357] The Plaintiff further allege that, the he was unlawfully imprisoned in the PEEL CIVIC HOSPITAL, Mental Intensive care Unit for about 14 days without lawful excuse, without being given the opportunity to instruct a lawyer, nor the opportunity to challenge the merits of the same unlawful detention. Furthermore, the same unlawful incarceration damaged the Plaintiff’s matter(C51190), by preventing him from completing the perfection of his leave to appeal at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO in addition to his matters(CV-10-4628 & CV-09-1288) at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West), for which he was held responsible for and ruled against. The application of the Plaintiff’s rights were not administered to within the 14 days said imprisonment.

[358] The Plaintiff alleges that their has been a failure or a denial of due process of law against the Plaintiff in contravention of Section (1) clause (a), Section (1) clause (b) and Section (2) clause (e) of the BILL OF RIGHTS, Section 11. clause(d) of the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM, and Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT.

[359] The Plaintiff alleges that, neither have he been dealt with by due process of law, nor has the application of his rights been administered to in accordance with the CHARTER, the HUMAN RIGHT ACT, the BILL OF RIGHTS, and THE COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS for the past 5 years. The applicant has suffering and his children are suffering. The Plaintiff further alleges that their are “ARTIFICIAL FINANCIAL BARRIER TO LEGAL RIGHTS”,a “LEGAL, BARRIER TO ENTRY”,a UNREASONABLE DELAY and an ARTIFICIAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE ENDS OF JUSTICE and the good of the public. Thereby preventing equity of the Law, equity in legal services and a denial, a suspension or delay in the application of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for the Applicant and his family byway of inequity and unfairness in the process and a continuation of systemic racism.

TRESPASSER Offence Number 8271152B:

[360] The Plaintiff alleges, that he was convicted of TRESPASSING without reasonable notice or any notice period in contravention of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS and NATURAL JUSTICE.

[361] The Plaintiff alleges, that staff at the Brampton Courthouse refuse to disclose his Court file Number for conviction, Judge, prosecutor or any information associated with conviction other than “you already have been convicted.”

[362] The Plaintiff alleges, that staff at the Brampton Courthouse refuse to disclose the date of his conviction,

[363] The Plaintiff alleges, that the Crown or any of it relevant or even the Prosecutor Office refused on more than four occasion to disclosed the necessary information to appeal the Trespass conviction. The staff kept asking the Plaintiff for information they refused to disclosed to him. This was done even-though a formal REQUISITION FOR DISCLOSURE was served on the Office of the Prosecutor.

[364] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 5^th of April 2012, he went to the GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, to file appeals of right with lieu of mandamus from the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE to the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, within the territorial jurisdiction of Ontario, where the criminal matters at issue took place, against the dismissal of the Applicant’s Informations by the lower courts.

[365] The Plaintiff alleges that the Clerk(Stephanie) on the fifth floor attending the Crown’s Office ignored the Plaintiff for about 10 minutes, then went to serve another person waiting for service who came after him in the queue. The Plaintiff alerted her to her action and she proceed to served the Plaintiff.

[366] The Plaintiff alleges that the same Clerk(Stephanie) refused service on the Plaintiff’s documents. The Plaintiff asked for the same Clerk to justify her refusal, for as for as he known he was following the process the Criminal Code lays out for appealing the dismissal of an information.

[367] The Plaintiff alleges that he ask the same Clerk if he could speak to her supervisor or someone who can give him legal justification for the refusal of his notice to Appeal documents; She agreed.

[368] The Plaintiff alleges that an assistance Crown Attorney came after a long wait to address the matter. He said that “you cannot appeal a pre-enquette, you must refile the information.” The Applicant advised him that there is case law for “pre enquette” being appeal all the way up to and including the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL. So the Plaintiff request of him to justify the refusal of the service using the Criminal Code.

[369] The Plaintiff further alleges that, he asserted to the same assistance Crown Attorney “that one cannot make things up as they go along and we must work within the constraints of the law.”

[370] The Plaintiff further alleges that the same assistance Crown Attorney He asked him to leave or else he will call court security, without a legal articulation of refusal of his NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL documents with in the context of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA while the OFFICE OF THE CROWN’S ATTORNEY was excepting service of other individual’s court documents.

[371] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 5^th of April 2012 the said assistance Crown Attorney, called security and they arrested the Plaintiff while he was trying to effect a legal service of a NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPEAL in accordance with CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA; which was refused with out articulated legal justification.

[372] The Plaintiff alleges that, he was arrested at 11:57 am, on 2012-04-05 by William Kristy(1606) for allege violation of Section 2(1)(b) of the TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT OF ONTARIO, at location 3160 under Offence Number 8271152B. Imagine that, A Canadian arrested for trying to effect his right of appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction. Furthermore, asking for legal justification or articulated reason for the denial of his rights byway of legal service of a notification of an appeal-of-right from the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE to the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE for legal matters within the jurisdictional territory of Ontario and under the jurisdictional authority of the Provence of Ontario.

[373] The Plaintiff alleges that, he was not read his RIGHTS nor was he given the opportunity to instruct LEGAL COUNCIL forthwith in contravention of Section 10 of the Criminal Code of Canada and due process of law.

[374] The Plaintiff alleges that, he asked to speak to a lawyer on more than one occasion, he was not provided one nor given the opportunity to retain one before uninformed discussion or interrogation. The aforesaid was done even though DUTY COUNSEL was located next door in the adjacent room.

[375] The Plaintiff alleges that, while in the elevators he demanded to know what he was being arrested for and what Section of the Code was being used. He had to ask many times while in handcuffs and under the carriage and control of PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, until he made the statement;

“so the arrest is arbitrary, since you cannot state which law I am violating?”

[376] The Plaintiff alleges that, after making the aforesaid statement,

he stated clearly that he is invoking his right to silence but the officers kept pushing with their questions. Furthermore, his person was searched, his belongings was searched and the Officer spend a long time going through his phone history, phone log with neither a notice of his legal rights nor a search warrant nor the application of his rights being administered to forthwith, despite the fact that DUTY COUNSEL was located next door in the adjacent room.

[377] The Plaintiff alleges that, the Officer-who-seemed-to-be-in-charge fondle the Plain’s cellphone like it was his own, intimately scanning through personal information which was not his own, which did-not belong to him and which he did-not have a right or granted express permission to be handled by his unwanted touch. The Plaintiff felt sick to his stomach, violated, as though something very dear and precious had been taken away from him whiled the Officer was “data mining” his cell phone the entire time he was in custody in a closed room with two Officers. The Plaintiff felt violated as his private information was “raped “ from his personal belongings and his personal phone without a search warrant and without being duly notified of his LEGAL RIGHTS and have them effected forthwith, despite the fact that DUTY COUNSEL was located next door in the adjacent room.

[378] The Plaintiff alleges that, the Officer-who-seemed-to-be-in-charge and was fondling the Plain’s cellphone deleted and audio file from the same phone’s memory with out the express permission of the Plaintiff who had colour of right to the said device.

[379] The Plaintiff further alleges that, the aforesaid is a similar feeling he felt when Officer Pekeski(2261) on the 25^th of August 2011 stole his personal belongings. Yes stole because he confiscated them and failed to return them at the Brampton Civic Hospital. The thing most precious to the Plaintiff was his small thick pink and purple notebook, which contained scribbles of some poems he was writing; these precious gems contain ing the Plaintiff’s feelings and emotions articulated into rhythmic and metaphoric phrase , were ripped away from his person. His uncompleted poetry unceremoniously severed from his attached heart and never to be seen or allowed to be completed, even though he had colour of right to the material in question.

JUSTICE/LEGAL AID:

7. RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF: FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE and the STATE parties.

8. Constitutional Tort Section 7., Section 11. clause(a), Section 11. clause(b), Section 11. clause (d), Section 24. subsection(1), Section 26., Section 32. clause (a), and Section 32. clause (b) to which the Attorney General of Ontario, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario, and Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Canada is vicariously liable for.

9. CAUSE OF ACTION at O.C.J-TRIAL: Breach of Confidence and Trust, systemic racism, nonuniform application of the law, denial of legal rights, contravention the CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM, contravention of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, denial of competent legal representation, denial of SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS(E.I.), financial barrier to accessing justice, artificial administrative barrier to accessing justice; is the right to be represented by competent legal professional advocate, a false right?

[380] The Plaintiff alleges that for matter 07-02500/07-02559, the York Regional Police Services has an inherent duty to to deal honestly, fairly, equitably and act in “good faith” within the constraints of Human Rights and Canadian Charter of Rights in the application and enforcement of the Code against members of the York Regional community when about the business of Her Majesty the Queen; in this duly sworn obligation, the York Regional Police Services has failed to effect the proper administration of the application of the Applicant’s rights.

[381] The Plaintiff alleges that for matter 07-02500/07-02559, the OFFICER’S NOTES, the Officers testimonies in the Trial Transcripts, the video tape evidence and the audio tape evidence are all void of any instances of the Officers in question informing the Applicant of his rights in a meaningful way and implementing them forthwith in accordance with the Charter in a meaningful way; within the context of their duly sworn obligation, the York Regional Police Services has failed to effect the proper administration of the application of the Applicant’s rights.

[382] The Plaintiff alleges that for matter 07-02500/07-02559, the Prosecuting Crown’s Attorney has an inherent obligation to disclose disclosure in a timely manner to ensure fairness, and judiciousness; in addition to not abusing the criminal judicial process; so that the applicant may have unimpeded opportunity to give full answer and to conduct his defence; within the inherent obligation’s of a Crown’s Attorney’s high office, the Crown’s Prosecutors has failed to effect the proper administration of the application of the Applicant’s rights.

[383] The Plaintiff alleges that for matter 07-02500/07-02559, Trial Judge and Appellate Justices has an obligation to ensure the Applicant receive a fair trial and is informed that he has the right to be represented by competent legal professional counsel, and to be given the opportunity to give full answer in accordance with Section 7 of the Charter and in a timely manner as so governed by Section 11(b) of the Charter; within the context of a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff and inherent obligations of a high office, the honorary Justice has failed to effect the proper administration of the application of the Applicant’s rights.

[384] The Plaintiff alleges that for matter 07-02500/07-02559, that The Hearing Transcripts, The Pretrial and the Appeal Hearing Transcripts are all void of any of the presiding justices informing the Applicant of his right to legal competent representation and inquiring of the Applicant if he wished to wave the said rights to legal competent representation; within the context of a fiduciary relationship with the Plaintiff and inherent obligations of a high office, the honorary Justices failed to effect the proper administration of the application of the Applicant’s rights.

[385] The Plaintiff alleges that for matter 07-02500/07-02559, The Trial Transcripts and the Application Transcripts Are all void of, The Ontario Provincial Court Judge presiding over the summary conviction trial, informing the accused of his minimum trial rights to legal competent representation and inquiring of the accused if he wished to wave the said rights. There is without question a none action, concerning informing and insuring the Applicant receive his minimum legal rights in a meaningful way by the Honourable Trial Justice; within the context of a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff and inherent obligations of a high office, the honorary Justices has failed to effect the proper administration of the application of the Applicant’s rights.

[386] The Plaintiff alleges that for matter 07-02500/07-02559, the STATE guarantees that the accuse will receive a fair and equitable trial; moreover, that he will be given the opportunity to give full answer in accordance with the Charter and or any other existing rights. This is the Obligation owed to the Applicant. The STATE has repetitively failed within this regard vicariously through it’s vigorously defended and well protected public agents. Fringe elements working in the service of Her Majesty the Queen, has fail in their obligation in addition to not effecting the proper administration of the application of the Applicant’s rights.

[387] The Plaintiff alleges that for matter 07-02500/07-02559, the STATE has a constitutional obligation to insure the indigent Applicant receive a fair trial and is represented by competent counsel in accordance with the Charter and other given Rights; in this duly sworn obligation, the York Regional Police Services has failed to effect the proper administration of the application of the Applicant’s rights. The STATE has repetitively failed within this regard vicariously through it’s vigorously defended and well protected public agents. Fringe elements working in the service of Her Majesty the Queen, has fail in their obligation in addition to effecting the proper administration of the application of the Applicant’s rights.

REGION OF PEEL/LEGAL AID:

1. RELATIONSHIP WITH EMPLOYER: Master and Servant

2. RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF: CLIENT, Fiduciary

3. Tort of Negligence, to which Ms. Cindy Kreiger, Ms. Nicole Arbour, Mr. Harry Boom are liable; and to which Salvation Army and the Region of Peel are vicariously liable.

4. CAUSE OF ACTION: Breach of contractual obligations, Breach of confidence and Trust, Breach of Duty owed to the public, Breach of Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, Breach of INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, and wilful damaging of the Plaintiff’s Appellate matter(C51190); is the right to be represented by competent legal professional advocate, a false right.

CINDY KREIGER:

[388] The Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353) and Ontario-Works damage the Applicant’s matter(C51190) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO by impeding him from fulfilling the requirements for perfecting his appeal(C51190).

[389] The Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353) on or about 6^th of June 2011, while possessing full knowledge of his Appeal Hearing(C51190) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 13^th of June 2011 did, make her decision to cancel the Plaintiff’s social assistance retroactively to the 1^st of June 2011 without reasonable notification to the Applicant.

[390] The Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353) on or about 6^th of June 2011, while possessing full knowledge of his medical condition or profile did, make her decision to cancel the Plaintiff’s medical assistance retroactively without taking into consideration the health and wellbeing of her client. Furthermore, the medication which her client relies on prevents organ damage and serious degradation of his known medical conditions.

[391] The Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353) on or about 6^th of June 2011, while possessing full knowledge of his Appeal Hearing(C51190) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 13^th of June 2011 did, make her decision to cancel the Plaintiff’s social assistance retroactively to the 1^st of June 2011 without taking into consideration the effects her said decision may have on her client's criminal matter, which was in the process of being completed and perfected completed. Furthermore, the completion of her client’s legal matter is apart of his restitution and the returning of her client’s life and his children’s life back to normalcy.

[392] The Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353) on or about 6^th of June 2011, while possessing full knowledge of his Appeal Hearing(C51190) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 13^th of June 2011 did, make her decision to cancel the Plaintiff’s social assistance retroactively to the 1^st of June 2011 did, significantly damage his case(C51190) by impeding the Plaintiff from perfecting his Appeal(C51190) at a critical time before the schedule hearing on the 13^th of June 2011 which she was formally notified of in a reasonable amount of time.

[393] The Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353) on or about 6^th of June 2011, while possessing full knowledge of his Appeal Hearing(C51190) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 13^th of June 2011 did, make her decision to cancel the Plaintiff’s social assistance retroactively to the 1^st of June 2011 taking into consideration the impediment of her client’s vision and the importance of correcting it to insure the successful implementation of work employment related training and marketability in the workforce.

[394] The Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353) on or about 6^th of June 2011, while possessing full knowledge of his Appeal Hearing(C51190) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 13^th of June 2011 did, make her decision to cancel the Plaintiff’s social assistance retroactively to the 1^st of June 2011 and taking into consideration Section. 1 of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT; which demands that their be equity in social services.

[395] The Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353) on or about 6^th of June 2011, while possessing full knowledge of his Appeal Hearing(C51190) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 13^th of June 2011 did, make her decision to cancel the Plaintiff’s social assistance retroactively to the 1^st of June 2011 for the following reasons; the Participation Requirements, disclosing of Chequing/Savings Accounts and Rent information

[396] The Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353) on or about 6^th of June 2011, while possessing full knowledge of his Appeal Hearing(C51190) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 13^th of June 2011 did, make her decision to cancel the Plaintiff’s social assistance retroactively to the 1^st of June 2011 by using the following Parliamentary Legislation;

“Legislative Authority

Section 14,24,26,27,28 of the Ontario Works Act 1997 -

Section 67 of Ontario Works Regulation 134/98 and Act:

7(3)(c) Regulation: 14.(1), 17.2”

which are convoluted and has no real meaning unless a copy of the actually sections of legislation are pointing to is disclosed.

[397] The Plaintiff alleges that, he formally made a request from Ontario-Works for disclosure of the legislative sections cited to enable him to constructive an effective defense against Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353) actions. This was never done.

[398] The Plaintiff alleges that, he formally made a request to Ontario-Works on many occasion for help in obtaining employment. Furthermore, the a few opportunities to obtain employment and he formally requested help to meet the requirements to be qualified for employment and Ontario-Works refused him on more than one occasion.

[399] The Plaintiff alleges that, he exceeded Chequing/Savings Accounts disclosure request.

[400] The Plaintiff alleges that, he disclosed several months of bank transaction data to Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353) in the preferred manner demanded by Ontario-Works, but since their was a time delay between when the request was made along with the time taken to gather the information, there was an additional month of data the same worker requested during a scheduled meeting.

[401] The Plaintiff further allege that, he personally went to Alterna savings at York University to obtain the Chequing/Savings Accounts requested information in addition to a hard copy of any RRSP or lack thereof. Furthermore, the Applicant went to the Alterna Savings down town Toronto and ordered and obtained all of the year 2010 bank transaction history and served them in addition to his beloved daughter’s bank statement to Ontario Works at 6715 Millcreek Dr., Unit 1, Mississauga, Ontario; in the preferred manner demanded by Ontario-Works.

[402] The Plaintiff further allege that, he has been very informative about the rent information. Furthermore, his residence was not a viable option at the time; he was praying for his daughter to finish the school year before he had to move.

[403] The Plaintiff further allege that, he attempted to explain the problem to Ontario-Works on many occasion. Furthermore, he articulated the following to Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353);

“I have been very informative about the rent information. I repetitively inform you that I have outstayed my welcome. My Present accommodation was only meant to be a year and I must move. I don’t know how to be any clearer than this. I am seeking shelter and I requested your help in finding emergency shelter. Please tell me how this translates into not providing shelter agreement? You tell the truth and you are accused of not providing shelter information. There is suppose to be trust and confidence towards one clients, it is an essential element in a relationship with a client. It is a fiduciary relationship which exist between use. You need my honesty and I need your effort and confidence.

If you want to wait till I move into a shelter to resume assistance or aiding me in finding an emergency shelter exceeds your authority. I don’t know...? It is better you say that this type of action is not apart of your policy than accuse me of not providing rental agreement.

In any event I still need to find an emergency shelter, please help me to find one?”

[404] The Plaintiff allege that, he never refused Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353) request for a participation agreement; but only requested a delay to finish perfecting his Appeal(C51190) at he COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[405] The Plaintiff further allege that, he articulated the following to Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353);

“I have Informed Ontario - Works that my 7 and Ten year old glasses are both broken and this has greatly impaired my sight. I am not able to read signs, or writing at a long distance.

I have informed Ontario - Works on many occasions that my my Criminal Appeal Hearing is in June (June 13, 2011), at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. The said Appeal was necessary for proving my innocence, restitution and returning my life back to normalcy.

I have signed papers giving Ontario-Works permission to access medical files, so you should know if there is any essential medication which I need to take for my health and well being. Medication which you have vicariously prevent me from having access to, thereby putting my health and life at risk.

I at no time refused to attend the step2 program, but mearly asked for a one month delay to prepare and attend court in June at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. Now because of Ms. Cindy Kreiger actions of canceling Ontario-Works assistance, thereby creating uncertainty in my preparation and attendance in court; the Criminal Appeal at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO has been delayed to September 7, 2011. Now how has this action helped anyone to reach their objective? I only requested one month delay to fulfill my obligations to the courts and complete my criminal appeal. Is this unreasonable? What is done is done! The June 13, 2008 Criminal Appeal Hearing at THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO has already been unnecessarily sabotaged by Ms. Cindy Kreiger unreasonable actions in my humble opinion.

Now I am forced to deal with the Ontario-Works issue before my CRIMINAL APPEAL AT THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. This only served to impede me and delay the return of my life back to normalcy. What is Ontario-Works objective within the context of their client’s and his children life? Furthermore, my beloved child was suppose to attend summer school which has been impeded in the face of uncertainty?

Is it reasonable for Ontario-Works to cancel assistance with a late notification which acts retroactively?

Denying me reasonable notification of cancellation of assistance, takes away the opportunity for me to give the Courts and relevant persons and institutions of financial and legal commitments, which will run the risk of causing the cancellation of the only bank account I am able to maintain because of a high rate of NSF charges. I require reasonable notice because things which are necessary to restore my life and my children’s life back to normalcy require reasonable notification.”

[406] The Plaintiff allege that on or about the 8^th of July 2011, the day after he was originally intake into the 2500 Cawthra Road, PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, he did not feel medically well. Furthermore, it had been almost two months since he had his necessary blood pressure medication; he had to resort to begging the onsite Ontario-Works worker and the Salvation Army Councilor to have his medication assistance privileges restored, unless they desired to see him dead. Which was done so the Applicant could get the necessary medication to keep his blood pressure at an acceptable level; without the said medication the Plaintiff body maintain’s a very high blood pressure which ensures that stroke, heart-attack and organ damage will occur, pursuant to the a “Doctors best medical advice”

[407] The Plaintiff allege that, sometime about the 16^th of June, 2010 he called the PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, to request temporary housing for him and his child. In the initial part of the Homeless Shelter questioning, it was brought to the attention of the shelter representative that Ontario - Works just recently discontinued the Applicant’s financial assistance. The said person informed him that the Shelter facility was operated by ONTARIO-WORKS and that they would have to review his file at ONTARIO WORKS. He was asked to hold the line. Which he patiently did.

[408] The Plaintiff further allege that, Upon the Mississauga, PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, representative’s returning to the phone conversation, he was informed that the conversation would have to continue another time. He took this as a normal part of the process for admitting a family to the said family Homeless Shelter. He was not told that the shelter was full or that their were present problems which prevented his admittance. In short he though innocently and believed that the shelter needed an interval of time to complete a required investigation for a families admittance.

[409] The Plaintiff further allege that, he recalled the same Mississauga , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, after a couple of days and after a brief introduction he was informed that the shelter staff was moving or rearranging attendance around to make room and to call back later. He accommodated their wishes without any ill feelings. The Applicant was not informed that the shelter was full or that there were present problems which prevented his admittance. He was only asked to call back at a later time. The phone he was using was not his own so it is not a good method of contacting him.

[410] The Plaintiff further allege that, He called the Mississauga , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, again in the evening and the male person who answered hang the phone up after a brief introduction.

[411] The Plaintiff further allege that, he phone the Mississauga , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, yet again, and the female person who answered told him the shelter was full and proceeded prematurely to end the call.

[412] The Plaintiff further allege that, he called the Mississauga , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, again, and the female person who answered told him that the shelter was full, and to “go to Brampton” and then she proceeded to prematurely end the call.

[413] The Plaintiff further allege that, he phone back many times and no one was answering or would answer the phone. So he started leaving messages such as; “I WOULD LIKE TO BE ASSESSED”, “ I WILL BE FILING A HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU”, and “I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MANAGER”.

[414] The Plaintiff further allege that, he called the Mississauga , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, again, and the female person who answered told him that the shelter was having a medical emergency and to call back in an hour. The Applicant asked her, who he should ask for and to disclose the managers name. She said his name is “Rodrego”. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asked her to spell it and she proceeded to prematurely end the call. This last repetitive occurrence happened at about 7:26 P.M. on July 4, 2011. The phone records can be checked for confirmation.

[415] The Plaintiff further allege that, he called the Mississauga , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, again, and a different female person answered. She said they were full. He asked or requested in clear precise language to be assessed anyway and he will be coming the next day to be assessed. He asked for the managers name and requested to speak to him. She said his name was “Sean”, and no managers would be in till 8.00 A.M. the next morning. He further requested the manger’s first initial and last name; so he could properly identify him. She put the Applicant on hold. It was at this point that he gave up on the conversation and decided to file a formal complaint with the Provincial Human Right Commission; which they neglected to investigate prudently. So, on or about July 11, 2011 Paul Richards for the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, articulates as follows;

“I have forwarded your complaint to HRTO for their review and action. Thank you for bringing your concerns to the attention of the commission.”

TAKE NOTICE: Paul Richards is the same exact name of the Federal Privacy Commission’s manager which the Plaintiff has a claim against for Breach of Trust and negligence of duty. But, it is not known if they or separate and distinct entities or one and the same person.

[416] The Plaintiff further allege that, he reasonable and probable believe and do believe that the Mississauga , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, staff was taking his plight as a joke. Which was caused by an unfortunate events. To threat a person in such an unprofessional manner with total disregard for the pitiful desperate position in ones life, has no excuse which the plaintiff will except. It is hard enough to muster confidence and ask for shelter, because of your shameful inability to provide for your children and yourself because of the foreseeability of damage of the allege malicious prosecution.

NICOLE ARBOUR:

[417] The Plaintiff allege that, that apart of the obligation for one to be admitted to a , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS; one must provide recent updated Chequing/Savings Accounts disclosed information. This the Plaintiff provided to Ms. Nicole Arbour(the onsite homeless shelter Ontario-Works caseworker), for assessment.

[418] The Plaintiff further allege that, in addition to other disclosed information he provided Ms. Nicole Arbour with updated Chequing/Savings Accounts information which she relayed to Ontario-Works(REGION OF PEEL) headquarters at 10 Peel Centre Dr., Brampton.

[419] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about July 8, 2011 INTERNAL REVIEW by Teri Windley(Supervisor), completed her internal review of Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353), the 6^th of June 2011, retro active notification and decision concerning financial assistance. Ms. Cindy Kreiger’s decision was affirmed in the following manner;

“...I have completed the internal review of the decision and would like to let you know that the original decision in confirmed because you did not provide your daughter’s bank statements and your rental verification...”

Which was not all together true, but contained fallacies.

[420] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about July 13^th, 2011 the SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL, made an INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER(1106-04904) in the following manner in regards to his appeal;

“...The Tribunal directs that the Administrator, Social Services Dept Region of Peel, pay interim assistance to the above noted appellant effective June 01, 2011 to November 30, 2011...”

[421] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about August 2^nd, 2011 Ontario-Work’s(Region of Peel), redundantly terminated financial assistance to which the Applicant was not in receipt of. Jane Anderspn-Renton(Manager), articulated the aforesaid in the following manner;

“Your current financial assistance has been suspended because: you cannot receive financial assistance if you reside in an institution that provide for your basic needs and shelter. Your financial assistance will stop as of August 2^nd, 2011 because you are living in an institution.”

[422] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about August 15^th, 2011 Nicole Arbour/Rudo Chiyangwa, served on the Applicant a notification letter to leave the , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, while she was fully briefed on the Applicant’s need to perfect his COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO appeal hearing(C51190) schedule to be heard on September 7^th, 2011; furthermore he recently finished notifying the same court of his new address and contact information, which is an official requirement by the criminal judicial process. They articulated their aforesaid notification in the following manner;

“...It has come to our attention that your stay has exceeded the 2 week period our shelter is mandated for; your original intake date was July 7th, 2011. Although we would like to continue supporting you in this time of transition you need to have secured accommodations no later than August 22, 2011. If you are unable to secure accommodations by, we will be happy to assist you in securing a bed at a shelter outside of Peel Region...”

[423] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about September 2^nd, 2011 Ontario-Work’s(Region of Peel) again, redundantly terminated financial assistance to which the Applicant was not in receipt of. Ontario-Works(Region of Peel), the SALVATION ARMY, and their 2500 Cawthra Road , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, was aware and well informed that the Plaintiff was imprisoned at the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, Mental Intensive Care Unit. Suzanne Finn(Manager), articulated the termination of financial assistant in the following manner;

“...This letter is to notify you of the suspension of the financial assistance you receive from the Ontario Works program(OW). Your current financial assistance has been suspended because: we have requested Participation Requirements, Chequing/Saving Accounts and Rent information and you have not provided it. This information is need to determine if you are [still] eligible for Ontario Works and to make sure that you get the right amount of financial assistance.

You have not given use the information that we need. Your financial assistance will stop as of September 2^nd, 2011...”

[424] The Plaintiff allege that, the aforesaid is false and not forth coming. All the information need for reassessment was given to MS. Nicole Arbour(Ontario-Works case worker), and gay-fully received by her. This is a requirement and obligation to be accepted into the 2500 Cawthra Rd. , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS; Ms. Nicole Arbour then forward all the information she demanded to the REGION OF PEEL. Further more, the Applicant served on Ms. Cindy Kreiger on more that one occasion the information being requested and again served on Ms. Nicole Arbour the relevant information being requested.

[425] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about June 8^th, 2011 the Applicant filed an Appeal to the Information and Privacy Commission for an Freedom of Information request, served on the “Head” of Ontario-Works byway of Ms. Cindy Kreiger (Caseworker #353) more than 30 days before the said date. The same information request for personal information had a non-decision status.

[426] The Plaintiff allege that, after 30 day and after his formal appeal to the INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSION, he received a response letter from Ontario-Works Peel Region advising him to come to 10 Peel Centre Dr. by July 30, 2011 to pick up his disclosure package(File: 123-11-92).

[427] The Plaintiff allege that, he Went on July 29, 2011 since July 30, 2011 was a holiday; on the Applicant’s arrival at REGION OF PEEL at 10 Peel Centre Dr. on July 29, 2011; Ms. Victoria Ghandour(Acting Manager) informed him personally that the package was not ready, even though their was a time limitation to pick up the said package by July 30, 2011. The Applicant agreed on consent for the disclosure package to be mailed to a disclosed address by express government mail.

[428] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about July 28, 2011 he received a letter from the INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSION(Dave Misir), advising of the closing of his appeal(Appeal MA11-267 ), against Ontario Works; for contended issues on information he requested, but have not yet officially received. The aforementioned, was done after allege discussions between REGION OF PEEL and Dave Misir. It was asserted that Dave Misir had discussions with Victoria Ghandour and before the Plaintiff received any disclosures of personal information; Dave Misir made an adjudication in favour of Ontario-Works and before a resolution in the name of the Information and Privacy commission(IPC).

[429] The Plaintiff allege that, that he went to 10 Peel Centre Dr. again on or about August 5, 2011 to retrieve his undisclosed disclosure for personally information; upon meeting Ms. Victoria Ghandour, she insisted that “the packaged was already mailed and the post office has been losing stuff.” The Applicant repetitively advised her that the Information and Privacy Commission had already made a decision on his appeal within the context of the Plaintiff already having received the disclosure package in question.

[430] The Plaintiff allege that, Ms. Victoria Ghandour realized that the Applicant was aware of the discrepancy, so she retrieve the un-mailed, non-disclosed disclosure package(LT 522 843 846 CA) dated August 3, 2011, off a cart and handed it to him personally.

[431] The Plaintiff allege that, Mr. Harry Boom’s decision to evict the Applicant without lawful excuse or reasonable notification in a meeting which was schedule to be about financial budget and permanent shelter for the Applicant and his beloved daughter, was self contradicting and a blatantly violation of Section 1. of the Human Rights Act. Mr. Harry Boom’s was informed of the legislative ramification of his unreasonable and nonuniform decision before he executed it by the Plaintiff. Some of the Homeless Shelter staff was informed on more that one occasion, that things cannot be done in the present non-uniform manner because it did not conformed to equity in services.

[432] The Plaintiff allege that on, Tuesday the 08^th of September 2011, at or about 2:00 P.M. he reached 2500 Cawthra Rd. at the ,PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS; after being released from his 14 days unlawful imprisonment at the WILLIAMS OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, Mental Intensive Care Unit.

[433] The Plaintiff allege that Ms. Forgol, was at the intake office; she was extremely well mannered and considerate; there was however a discussion or argument being engaged in to resoled a problem of admitting the applicant to the shelter, or not to admit him to the shelter. This produce two cases in the aforementioned irregular situation.

[434] The Plaintiff allege that, he reasonable and probable believe and do believe; that the final decision for admission was left up to Ms. Nicole Arbour, the Applicant’s past assigned Ontario-Works case worker at the same Shelter; since she is the one whom was consulted for determination or clarification regarding the Applicant’s stay at the , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS,.

HARRY BOOM(CASE1):

[435] The Plaintiff allege that, According to one perspective of the argument that was engaged in by the staff, in the intake office. Ms. Nicole Arbour discharge and restricted the Plaintiff on the 22^nd of August 2011. The restriction according to the same staff is suppose to be 14 days. This was affirmed and confirmed by Ms. Forgol and a tall Caucasian gentleman (Mr. Harry Boom) who was acting in the capacity of a Salvation Army councilor after going through the documentation in the Applicant’s file.

[436] The Plaintiff allege that, on Monday the 08^th of September 2011, at or about 2:00 P.M. he completed and signed with the date indicated, THE SALVATION ARMY Form for personal information request and served the same document on the THE SALVATION ARMY Manager at 2500 Cawthra Rd., , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, byway of the Intake office (Ms. Forgol). Their has been no response even thought the request was asked to be completed ASAP.

CASE 2:

[437] The Plaintiff allege that, According to the perspective of the argument that was going on by the staff in the intake office. Ms. Nicole Arbour discharge and restricted the Applicant on the 22^nd of August 2011. The restriction according to some staff is suppose to be 30 days.

[438] The Plaintiff allege that, he was given a copy of the of the August 15, 2011 letter discharging him on the 22^nd of August 2011, and told that he is restricted from August 22, 2011 for 30 days. The same letter does not mention the length of period for the so-called restriction. Furthermore, the Applicant over heard another intake attendant saying that she showed Ms. Nicole Arbour her discharged letter and she confirmed to her person that it was indeed a 30 days restriction.

[439] The Plaintiff allege that, on Tuesday the 08^th of September 2011, he filled out a formal request for PERSONAL INFORMATION AND POLICY disclosure byway of the Freedom of Information Act. The Salvation army already had such a form for a freedom of Information request, so it only had to be filled out. The Plaintiff has received no reply to this request.

[440] The Plaintiff allege that, he informed Ms. Forgol that he would like to speak to the manager. Ms. Forgol is a very kind and hard working lady. She went over the data again and determined that the restriction was for 14 days which had long passed, since the Applicant was in the Hospital for about 14 days.

[441] The Plaintiff allege that, Ms. Forgol presented her findings to Ms. Allison Waltho, the Program Director; the Program Director concurred with Ms. Forgol and they both spoke to the Plaintiff privately in the first intake room closest to the intake office.

[442] The Plaintiff allege that, Ms. Allison Waltho, the Program Director said she would readmit the Applicant, however he must abide by their rules and she went over some of those rules. The Applicant was in agreement with Ms. Allison Position. Furthermore, he agreed to see the Salvation Army/Ontario-Works counselor as soon as possible to discuss finding a place or permanent accommodation to live.

[443] The Plaintiff allege that, on Tuesday the 08^th of September 2011, at or about 2:30 P.M. he was admitted to 2500 Cawthra Rd., , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, which appears to be under the carriage and control of Ontario-Works.

[444] The Plaintiff allege that, he was left in the first intake office with Ms. Nicole Arbour who allege that he was spreading lies about. This was highly irregular, since all meeting or discussions always has at least two staff members as a matter of policy. Ms. Arbour informed the Applicant that he was spreading lies about her. He countered and said that anything she was alleging, he disclosed in the written documentation he formally served on her and ONTARIO-WORKS. Furthermore, he informed her that she was well in her rights to file a defamation suite if she reasonably believe that her claim has any merits or that an actionable wrong had been committed against her person.

[445] The Plaintiff allege that, on Monday the 08^th of September 2011, at or about 2:00 P.M. he completed and signed with the same date, THE SALVATION ARMY Form for personal information request and served the same document on the THE SALVATION ARMY Manager at 2500 Cawthra Rd., PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, byway of the Intake Office (Ms. Forgol). Their has been no response even thought the request was asked to be completed ASAP.

ORDERED TO VACATE PEEL REGIONAL SHELTER:

[446] The Plaintiff allege that, on Tuesday the 12^th of September 2011, he waited all morning and all afternoon for his 1:00 P.M. appointment with Ontario-Works and the SALVATION ARMY jointed co-counselors. The Ontario-Works councilor's name, he still does-not know, and the Salvation Army’s counselor was Mr. Harry Boom, whom made a determination or ruling in violation of Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, in regards to equal services or uniformity in services among all Canadians.

[447] The Plaintiff allege that, even though he informed Mr. Harry Boom of the violation of Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. Contrastly, no one informed the Applicant about establishing housing, operation budget, if he had secured accommodation or had the common decency to give him written notification and reasonable time to vacate the shelter; the Plaintiff was simple thrown out or an oral demand was made for him to vacate the shelter the next day in no uncertain terms, on more than one occasion without reasonable notification to the Applicant/tenant.

[448] The Plaintiff allege that, on Tuesday the 12^th of September 2011, at or about 3:30 P.M. the ONTARIO-WORKS and THE SALVATION ARMY made a determination or ruling in violation of Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, in regards to equal services or uniformity in services among all Canadians.

[449] The Plaintiff further allege that, the Salvation Army and Ontario-Works made a determination vicariously through Mr. Harry Boom(case worker), in violation of Article 2. of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT of CIVIL an POLITICAL RIGHTS. Canada is a signatory to the International Convention of the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. Article 2 of the International Convention mandates that all state parties;

“undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and with out delay a policy of elimination racial discrimination in all its forms...”

The aforementioned is a promise by the signature states made to the international community and its citizens to enforce and protect HUMAN RIGHS and human dignity.

[450] The Plaintiff allege that, for example, “Mary”, a caucasian female has been at the Salvation Army Shelter for much longer than he has; the only differences is that she is a Caucasian Female and he is a Black Male. The Applicant came to the , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, and met Mary, he got discharged on August 22, 2011 and went to the Hospital for 14 days and returned to witness Mary still living at the shelter. On the day that Mr. Harry Boom informed the Applicant that he must leave the next day in strong direct and clear articulation; The Applicant overheard Mary asking Mr. Harry Boom when he was going to fix her phone which was having charging issues.

[451] On the 1^st of October 2011 at about 11:30 A.M. or close to the said time; He saw Mary with a friend on the Hurontario (19) Bus on her way to Square One. She disclosed to the Applicant that she was still at the , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, and was planning on leaving the following Monday. Thus, asper Mary she was leaving the , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, on the 3^rd of October 2011. Yet the 2 week stay policy has not been enforced against her! The only difference between Mary and the Applicant are, she is a Caucasian female and he is a Black male.

[452] The Plaintiff allege that, Similarly, “Steve” a caucasian French Quebec gentleman with a very large overgrown red beard, has been at the shelter for over 1 month and yet the 2 week stay policy has not been enforced against him! The only difference between Steve and the Applicant are, he his French male Caucasian and he is a Black male.

[453] The Plaintiff allege that, Similarly the Applicant’s roommate in room 125 and occupying bed 125C(lower bunk); the Applicant believe is roommate to be a very intelligent caucasian gentleman, had been at the shelter for over 1 month and yet the 2 week stay policy had not been enforced against him! The only difference between the Applicant’s roommates and the Plaintiff is, he is a male Caucasian and the Applicant is a Black male.

[454] There are many many many such examples as the aforementioned. Plaintiff took a mental note of at least 7 such examples. All that needs to be done is to check and confirm the said allegation byway of the intake history in the intake files.

[455] The Plaintiff allege that, on Tuesday the 12^th of September 2011, he waited all morning and all afternoon for his 1:00 P.M. appointment with Ontario-Works and the SALVATION ARMY jointed co-counselors. The Ontario-Works councilor's the Applicant still doesn’t know, and the Salvation Army’s counselor was Mr. Harry Boom, whom has made a determination or ruling in violation of Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, in regards to equal services or uniformity in services among all Canadians.

[456] The Plaintiff allege that, The same appointment was suppose to be about, budget, financial constraints, relevant resources and housing. It was pushed from 1:00 PM to 3:00 P.M. and the Applicant even attended a class on problem solving with Mr. Harry Boom before the necessary meeting, to put into action the wheels of recovery for normal living. The Applicant was informed by the Program Director (Ms. Allison Waltho), upon admission into the , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, that the said meeting with both counselors was necessary and mandatory. So the Applicant fulfilled his part of the obligation and made an appointment.

[457] The Plaintiff allege that, At the same appointment their was no introduction by the counselors. The Applicant still does-not know, nor does he have the Ontario-Works counselors business card. Mr. Harry Boom’s business card the Applicant received upon request. He was, reluctant in relinquishing it, stating upon it’s disclosed release;

“you are not going to use this against me?”

[458] The Plaintiff allege that, replied by stating that he have already informed him (Mr. Harry Boom) of the violation of Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. Contrastly, no one informed the Applicant about establishing housing, operation budget, or if he had secured accommodation or had the common decency to give him written notification and time to vacate the shelter; the Applicant was simple thrown out or a demand was made for him to vacate the shelter the next day in no uncertain terms.

[459] The Plaintiff allege that, the determination was already predetermined before the Applicant walked into the Office. The Plaintiff was simply told that he had exhausted his-stay and he must leave the next day without reasonable notification! he was not asked relevant questions, but only questions about his beloved child; such questions whose answers the misdirected questioner, had already been given.

[460] The Plaintiff allege that, on the 12^th of September 2011 at about 3:30 P.M., he was informed orally in no uncertain terms and without a letter of notification, that he must vacate the , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, the next day. The Ontario-Works counselor who failed to disclose her identity byway of a business card, acted as a witness. What the plaintiff wanted was due process, given to him in the same manner as any caucasian client.

[461] The Plaintiff allege that, one will not be admitted to the , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, without Doctors Release Medical papers which are suppose to be privilege information which has now become available to a horde of people and other institutions. On the 13^th of September 2011 the Applicant served on the Salvation Army and Ontario-Works co-jointly a request for all his personal information at about 10:30 A.M. byway of Samantha(intake Officer) and left the said facility to comply with the demands made on his person without lawful excuse or reasonable notification, to vacate the , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS.

[462] The Plaintiff further allege that, on or about the 13^th of September 2011, the Applicant served upon the “head” Ontario-Works and the SALVATION ARMY, a freedom of information request for his personal information gathered and stored at 2500 Cawthra Rd, PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS. Neither the THE SALVATION ARMY nor Ontario-Works(REGION OF PEEL), responded to the said personal information request. Furthermore, the $5 check address to the Minister of Finance was never returned to the Applicant. Their has been no response, except from the Information and privacy commission to resubmit a new request.

[463] The Plaintiff further allege that at the INTAKE OFFICE of 2500 Cawthra RD. , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, on the 19^th of April 2012, at 7:15 a.m. the Applicant served upon the “HEAD” of Ontario-Works and the”HEAD” of the SALVATION ARMY, a freedom of information request for his personal information gathered and stored at 2500 Cawthra Rd, PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, along with a $10.00 money order purchased from Canada Post. Neither the THE SALVATION ARMY nor Ontario-Works(REGION OF PEEL), responded to the said personal information request. Furthermore, the $10:00 check address to the SALVATION ARMY was never returned to the Applicant. Their has been no response, except from the Information and Privacy Commission which has dismissed the said request, even though the REGION OF PEEL HAS CARRIAGE AND CONTROL of the PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, IN QUESTION; in addition to having financial control of the same facility.

SOCIAL TRIBUNAL HEARING(1106-04904):

[464] The Plaintiff allege that, on Tuesday the 6^th of September 2011, at some unspecified time in the afternoon, the Applicant called LEGAL AID ONTARIO from the WILLIAMS OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, Mental Intensive Care Unit, to make a legal aid application with respect to the SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL APPEAL HEARING; which he incorrectly believed to be pending on November 30, 2011.

[465] The Plaintiff further allege that, Legal Aid Ontario Informed him that he would have to speak to a specialist, and that he would have to wait a long time. LEGAL AID ONTARIO, did not say how long he would have to wait.

[466] The Plaintiff allege that, on Tuesday the 6^th of September 2011, at or about 2:00 P.M., without checking the availability or status of the other Bell pay phone or the Curtesy phone Nurse Janie, whom articulated;

“I don’t care what you are on the phone for,”

and Mrs. Hamilton (nurse in charge), concluded that the Applicant, Wayne Ferron must relinquish the phone in question immediately without the completion of his LEGAL AID BUSINESS; which he promptly did at the said nurses insistence, because the Applicant Wayne Ferron is under their carriage and control vicariously through the unlawful custody affirmed by Dr. Koczerginski on Aug 29, 2011 on a FORM 3.; thereby losing the opportunity and wasting time to make his Legal Aid Application for the SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL.

[467] The Plaintiff allege that, that on Tuesday the 07^th of September 2011, at about 9:00 A.M., he asked his nurse(Mona), if he could use the courtesy phone. She said yes and to precede to the “THE OTHER SIDE”, where the phone is located. He need to speak to his lawyer who had never seen him nor speak to him personally or electronically about the Appeal Hearing byway of FORM3. In addition, he also needed make a LEGAL AID APPLICATION for his SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL HEARING; since on September 6, 2011, nurse Janie and Mrs. Hamilton had prevented him from completing his LEGAL AID ONTARIO call to make a legal aid application byway of termination of the same call.

[468] The Plaintiff allege that, on Tuesday the 07^th of September 2011, he called LEGAL AID ONTARIO to make an application for the Social Benefit Tribunal Hearing. He was informed that LEGAL AID ONTARIO no longer supports Social Benefit Tribunal Hearing; even though ONTARIO WORK’S documentation encouraged Clients to seek the assistant of LEGAL AIDE ONTARIO for help after the disqualification of benefits.

[469] The Plaintiff further allege that, he informed LEGAL AID ONTARIO that Ontario -Works documentation directed him to seek LEGAL AID ONTARIO’s help for finding a lawyer.

[470] The Plaintiff further allege that, Legal Aid Ontario told him that he has to first proceed to a Legal Clinic, which would then issue him a ticket, which would then enable Legal Aid to consider him for Legal Aid help for the Social Benefits Tribunal Hearing.

[471] The Plaintiff further allege that, he informed Legal Aid that he was in custody at the Hospital and did not have access to any phone except a Bell pay phone and had no mobility, so there was a barrier to entry to accessing the Legal Clinic and subsequently Legal Aid.

[472] The Plaintiff further allege that, Legal Aid gave the Applicant a number to access the Legal Clinic(1 866 457 0160), but upon trying to utilize the same number from BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, Mental Intensive care Unit, using the Bell pay phone to dial number 1 866 457 0160, the applicant was advised by the bell operator that it was not functional from his present location.

[473] The Plaintiff further allege that, he called Legal Aid and advised them of the aforesaid, Legal Aid Ontario told him the nurse can arrange for him to make a Legal Aid application for the Social Tribunal.

[474] The Plaintiff further allege that, he asked his nurse Just as Legal Aid directed him to do; the said nurse advised him that the medical staff does not make arrangement for Legal Aid Application, but Frank, the Social Worker does. WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, and its relevant medical staff discharged the Plaintiff before he could arrange to speak to Frank the social worker..

[475] The Plaintiff allege that, It was after this occurrence that he decided to request LEGAL AID ONTARIO’S official policy on assistance for SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL hearings; since he was trying to obtain competent legal professional counsel to act as his advocate.

[476] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about the 29^th of November 2011 the Information and Privacy Commission advised the Applicant that they were in receipt of the Applicant’s Appeal(PA11-504) against Legal Aid Ontario for non-response for requested policy disclosure.

[477] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about the 31^st of October 2011 LEGAL AID ONTARIO advised him in the following manner by Alice Zhou;

“...you included a check for $5.00 payable to the Minister of Finance. As Legal Aid Ontario is not a ministry of the Ontario government, we are unable to process this check...”

[478] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about the 3^rd of January 2012 LEGAL AID ONTARIO advised him in the following manner byway of Alice Zhou;

“...this new check was returned by the on December 23, 2011. Please see the attached returned item Advised from Bank of Montreal...”

[479] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about the 5^th of January 2012 LEGAL AID ONTARIO advised him in the following manner byway of Alice Zhou;

“...Based on the information you provided to us on January 5, 2012, LAO has decided to waive the $5.00 fee...”

[480] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about the 23^rd of January 2012 LEGAL AID ONTARIO advised him in the following manner by Robert W. Ward(President/CEO) for information request number N0.: 11-013;

“...Thank your for your request for access to information, which was received in this office on October 3, 2011. Payment for the $5.00 fee was received in this office on January 11, 2012 and we began processing your request at that time. {...} You will note from these documents that LAO’ coverage in Social Benefits Tribunal matters is limited to cases where a community legal clinic is unable to assist and has provided a written referral to Legal Aid Ontario....”

[481] THIS IS WHAT LEGAL AID ONTARIO SAYS IT IS;

“Legal Aid Ontario (LAO), an independent but publicly funded and publicly accountable non-profit corporation...”

“In 1998, the Ontario government enacted the Legal Aid Services Act in which the province renewed and strengthened its commitment to legal aid. The Act established Legal Aid Ontario (LAO), an independent but publicly funded and publicly accountable non-profit corporation, to administer the province's legal aid program.”

“LAO is the second largest justice agency in the province”

[482] The Plaintiff allege that, on Tuesday the 6^th of September 2011, he advised the Social Tribunal at the Hearing that he only recently received the aforementioned disclosure from Legal Aid Ontario and was requesting an adjournment to apply for LEGAL AID to retain a lawyer. The Social Tribunal refereed to LEGAL AID ONTARIO documentation, even though it refused to include the same documentation at the hearing, in it’s review documentation for adjudication; it ruled against the Applicant in any event.

There are no posts in this folder...

PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

Author Information

PART 2 - WHY I AM HATED, DISPISED, AND LEGALLY BULLIED IN ONTARIO COURTS?

Folder Contents

Free Membership

Who's online

Online users

Who's new