PART 3 - 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 2 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

AMENDED CLAIM

HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO:

1. RELATIONSHIP WITH EMPLOYER: Master and Servant

2. RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF: FIDUCIARY/Public Prosecutor

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

4. Tort of Breach of Statutory Duty, to which The Attorney General of Ontario and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.

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

6. Tort of Neligent Government Activity, to which the MINISTRY of COMMUNITY SAFETY and CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, the Attorney General of Ontario, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.

7. Constitutional Tort Section 7., Section 11. clause(a), Section 11. clause(b), Section 11. clause (d), Section 15(1), Section 24. subsection(1), Section 26., Section 32. clause (a), and Section 32. clause (b) to which the MINISTRY of COMMUNITY SAFETY and CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, the Attorney General of Ontario, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.

8. CAUSE OF ACTION at S.C.J-APPEAL OF RIGHT: Breach of confidence and trust, Breach of the Charter, Breach of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS destruction of evidence, suppression/denial of evidence, abuse of process, denial of witnesses, denial of legal rights, denial of natural justice, 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?

WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVINCIAL PUBLIC AGENTS BELOW:

[483] The Plaintiff allege that, the following public institutions and public agents has an inherent duty to the public at large; HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, MINISTRY of COMMUNITY SAFETY and CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE BOARD, YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE BOARD, CHERLY GOODIER, PETER WESTGATE, JEFFREY COSTAIN, JOANNE STUART, MATTHEW ADAMS, NICOLE ARBOUR, AND CINDY KREIGER.

[484] Pursuant to the Attorney General’s PRACTICE MEMORANDUM To Counsel, Criminal Law Division June 11, 2009 (PM [2009] No. 1) Page 1 of 33;

“Crown counsel must make disclosure according to law. Where Crown counsel proposes to provide, withhold, or restrict disclosure for reasons that are not recognized by current case law or statute, he/she must have the approval of his/her Crown Attorney, and the Director of Crown Operations for his/her region. Crown counsel must make full and timely disclosure of information in the Crown’s possession or control to the defence, subject to established legal limitations on the duty to disclose in order to protect legal privileges, including the need to protect the privacy and safety of witnesses. The instances of delaying disclosure should be rare and Crown counsel should consult with his/her Crown Attorney before exercising this discretion.

Crown counsel should consult about difficult decisions. Disclosure decisions can have a permanent impact upon the rights of accused persons and third parties. Improper disclosure may result in miscarriages of justice, mistrials, retrials, stays of proceedings and lawsuits. Many areas of the law of disclosure continue to develop.”

[485] Pursuant to the Attorney General’s PRACTICE MEMORANDUM To Counsel, Criminal Law Division June 11, 2009 (PM [2009] No. 1) Page 3-4 of 33;

“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.

Crown counsel may delay or limit disclosure only in certain circumstances as prescribed by law. In general, Crown counsel may only justify non-disclosure in the following situations:

• Where the material is not in the Crown’s possession, and is beyond the Crown’s control;

• Where the material is clearly irrelevant;

• Where there is a legal limitation on the obligation to disclose the material

• protected by a form of privilege, including the duty to protect the identity of

• confidential informants⁶;

• Where the material is protected by a court order or by a statutory provision that it

• not be disclosed.⁷

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”

¹Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta (2002), 168 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (S.C.C.) at 118.

² R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; R. v. Taillefer, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307 at para. 59.PM [2009] No. 1 Page 4 of 33

³Ontario, Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure, and Resolution Discussions (Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1993) at 196 [hereinafter Martin Report]. ⁴R. v. Taillefer, supra; R. v. Carosella, [1997] ¹ S.C.R. 80. ⁵R. v. Trotta, [2004] O.J. No. 2439 (C.A.); overturned on other grounds [2007] S.C.J. No. 49.

⁶ R. v. Stinchcombe, supra, at 339; R. v. Chaplin, [1995] ¹ S.C.R. 727 at para. 21; R. v. Egger, [1993] ²S.C.R. 451 at para. 19. 7 For example, third party records pursuant to s. 278 (Criminal Code of Canada), or as captured by R. v. O’Connor, [1995] ⁴ S.C.R. 411.

⁸ R. v. Egger, supra, at para. 19.

[486] The Plaintiff allege that, relevant public institutions and public agents has allowed a phantom(B. Hird) to successfully had a citizen of Canadian society at large charged and convicted as a Criminal in addition to setting a precedence for successful prosecutions based upon criminal acts or acts of omission and without lawful authority or due process of law.

ACKNOWLEDGING INSTRUMENT IN FALSE NAME

405. Every one who, without lawful authority or excuse, the proof of which lies on him, acknowledges, in the name of another person before a court or a judge or other person authorized to receive the acknowledgment, a recognizance of bail, a confession of judgment, a consent to judgment or a judgment, deed or other instrument is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 363.

[487] The Plaintiff allege that, this is possible one of the worse fallacy which is permitted to occur in a democratic system of governance, where civilized practice of law is effected. Mainly, the establishment of a precedence to prosecute Canadian citizens on the bases of prosecutors having wanton disregard for the Charter and the Criminal Code of Canada. This matter speaks to the fundamental foundation of the Criminal Judicial System.

[488] Pursuant to the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK;

“11.3.5 Conduct of Post-Charge Proceedings

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

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

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

(11.3.5, The Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook )

[489] The Plaintiff further allege that,_he has even been Ordered to pay quantum of monies to the same phantom(B. Hird), whom does not exist at bar.

[490] The Plaintiff further allege that,_their has been a continual denial of NATURAL JUSTICE in addition to a denial or impedance to accessing justice.

[491] The Plaintiff further allege that, Information 07-02559 is not compliant with Section.508(1)(b)(i), Section 505, and 508 of the Criminal Code of Canada, in addition to challenging the RECOGNIZANCE OF BAIL(07-02500) which was entered into on March 28, 2007 for Information 07-02500 with the endorsement of the Honourable Justice B. Norton.

[492] The Plaintiff further allege that, he is not even considered to be an accuse by the Criminal Code of Canada, since their was no issuance of process or finding of process for Information 07-02559.

[493] The Plaintiff further allege that, he is the victim of a prosecution which does not have parliamentary support or necessary legislative authority to prosecute his person.

[494] The Plaintiff Further allege that, Jurisdictional authority over the allege charges against the Plaintiff for Information 07-02559 was lost on January 18, 2012 after the withdrawal of Information 07-02500 and the arraignment of the Applicant, in-addition to Information being voidable byway of an allege false oath.

“In his 1987 report on the Ontario Courts Inquiry, the Honourable Mr. Justice Zuber found that since the Ontario Attorney General's guidelines were only guidelines, they were not followed by some Crown Attorneys. It was recommended that the Attorney General upgrade the guidelines to the status of a Directive to be observed unless the Crown prosecutor could demonstrate why, in a particular case, disclosure should not be made. Consultation involving Crown Attorneys and the Criminal Lawyers Association followed and, on October 1, 1989, a directive was issued.

On July 17, 1991, the Attorney General of Ontario announced the appointment of the Honourable G. Arthur Martin as Chair of a Committee on Disclosure, Screening and Resolution.

{...}

Ethical and Legal Obligations Relating to Disclosure

The Police

29. The Committee recommends that s. 1(c)(viii) of the Code of Offences, a Schedule to Regulation 791 under the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.IS, be amended to read as follows:

1. Any chief of police, other police officer or constable commits an offence against discipline if he is guilty of

(c) NEGLECT OF DUTY, that is to say, if he, where a charge is laid fails to disclose to the officer in charge of the prosecution or the prosecutor any information that he or any person within his knowledge can give for or against any prisoner or defendant.

Crown Counsel

30. The Committee recognizes that it is a serious disciplinary offence for the Crown to fail to disclose to the defence as required.

31. The Committee recommends that it is inappropriate for Crown counsel to limit or refuse disclosure in a case, unless defence counsel agrees to limit a preliminary inquiry so as to ensure efficient use of court time. This does not preclude counsel from agreeing to shorten or waive a preliminary inquiry...”

HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA:

9. RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF: FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

10. Tort of Breach of Interlocking Duties, to which to which The Attorney General of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada are vicariously liable.

11. Tort of Negligence of Duty, to which Ms. Joanne Santino, Ms. Paulette Melanson, Mr. Paul Richard, The Attorney General of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada are vicariously liable.

12. Tort of Negligent Government Activity, to which to which The Attorney General of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada are vicariously liable.

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

14. CAUSE OF ACTION at O.C.J-LEAVE TO APPEAL: suppression/denial of evidence, abuse of process, DENIAL OF EVIDENCE AND NAURAL JUSTICE(07-02559), DENIAL OF EVIDENCE AND NAURAL JUSTICE(M38706), denial of legal rights, denial of social insurance benefits(E.I.), denial of civil and political rights, financial barrier to accessing justice, artificial administrative barrier to accessing justice, wilful damaging of C51190 matter; PROBATION-assault, malicious procurement of legal instruments, COURT OF APPEAL DUPTY REGISTRAR-Sandra Theroulde’s wilful damaging of C51190 matter, ONTARIO WORKS/SALVATION ARMY wilful damaging of C51190 matter, WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM/PEEL REGIONAL POLICE- wilful damaging of C51190 matter, assault, aggravated assault, unlawful arrest, unlawful confinement, Breach of INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, NEGLIGENCE OF DUTY, BREACH OF TRUST, CONTRAVENTION OR NEGLIGENCE OF CONTRACT OBLIGATION, CONTRAVENTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE CHARTER; is the right to be represented by competent legal professional advocate, a false right?

PAULETTE MELANSON(INQ-002353):

[495] The Plaintiff allege that, there has been Bias or a reasonable apprehension of Bias by FEDERAL PRIVACY COMMISSION; Madam Paulette Melanson (NQ-002353), and Paul Richard(7100-010299) acting in the capacity of FEDERAL PRIVACY COMMISSION Agents, in favour of the Employment Insurance Commission.

[496] The Plaintiff allege that, there has bee a violation or breach of the Applicant’s confident and trust with respect to a fair and impartial investigation and adjudication to resolve contended issues with the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, in a reasonable amount of time, within the constraints of natural justice and PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.

[497] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about the 23^rd of December 2008, he filed a formal complaint to the Federal Privacy Commission against Employment Insurance. The Applicant articulated his complaint in the following manner;

“EI, is violating my Privacy rights. EI has refused to hear my appeal until I send them document of a court decision which is in the process of being appeal to the Superior Courts. I have informed EI of the citation information and to the fact that the matter which they want to use to prove misconduct on my part; Is before the courts. I would like you to use this letter as an official complaint of this unjustified actions. I would like to know if I should surrender the documents under duress, so I may eat and feed my children.”

[498] The Plaintiff allege that, Ms. Paulette Melanson had carriage and control of the Applicant’s matter(INQ-002353). The plaintiff placed his trust and confidence in her to resolve the contended issue as stated above after a 15 minutes conversation in January 2009, she promised the Applicant an investigation into the matter.

Proof of conviction or discharge

EVIDENCE ACT - 22.1

(1) Proof that a person has been convicted or discharged anywhere in Canada of a crime is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the crime was committed by the person, if,

(a) no appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken and the time for an appeal has expired; or

(b) an appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken but was dismissed or abandoned and no further appeal is available. 1995, c. 6, s. 6 (3).

Same

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the convicted or discharged person is a party to the proceeding. 1995, c. 6, s. 6

PAUL RICHARD(File: 7100-010299):

[499] The Plaintiff allege that, after almost a year with no adjudication or investigative report; the Applicant contacted the Federal Privacy Commission

and advised them that their determination on the merits of the privacy complaint was need in a contended issue before a UMPIRE with Employment Insurance. The Applicant articulated his concerns to the Federal Privacy Commission in the following manner;

“TAKE NOTICE: I am in preparation of documents for my EI Appeal, and will be arguing the Federals IPC Bias, inability or lack of effort and desire to deal with the mater placed before it. I cannot wait any longer, over one year has already passed. I must proceed now if I wish to have any success!

{...}

I respectfully ask for an appeal to Employment Insurance demands. You advise me on the phone that there was nothing wrong with the EI demands. However, you refuse to back up your statement with written documentation. This tells me there is something wrong.

I was promised an investigation by Mr. Paul Richard (File: 7100-010299), well over a year ago. I was led to believe an investigation was started at that time. Many months later with gentle encouragement, I was assured that the investigation which Madame Madam Paulette (NQ-002353), initially promised in Nov 2008 had finally started.”

[500] The Plaintiff allege that, on the 8^th of June 2010 he sent a request for all personal information within the carriage and control of the Federal Privacy Commission by way of registered mail(LT 559 751 414 CA). Furthermore, Mr. Paul Richard gained the Plaintiff trust and confidence; so he agreed in an oral contract to not pursue the information request matter nor any legal action if the investigation in question was completed as promised first by Ms. Paulette Melanson then by Mr. Paul Richard.

[501] The Plaintiff allege that, on the 22^nd of June 2010 Mr. Paul Richard sent a letter to the Applicant which stated as follows;

“This is further to our telephone conversation of June 21, 2010.

Base on our conversation I have referred your complaint for a complete investigation. In addition, I am returning the package of information you sent to this office on June 8, 2010 along with the two $5.00 cheques.

I trust you will find the above satisfactory.”

The Plaintiff further allege that he held up his part of the oral contract, until he was convince that nothing was being done to remedy the situation.

[502] The Plaintiff allege that, about early September 2010 the FEDERAL PRIVACY COMMISSION wrote and asked for additional information to conduct its INVESTIGATION (7100 010299/INQ-002353).

[503] The Plaintiff further allege that he prudently put together a relevant package of information and document consisting of the following;

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TAB 10 INTEK COMMUNICATIONS TERMINATION LETTER

TAB 11 NOV 6/2008, EI COMMISSION LETTER

TAB 12 DEC 09/2008, EI COMMISSION LETTER FRO J SANTINO

20/11/2008, FINE ORDER OF ONT/MINA GIORDANO

TAB 13 DEC 23/2008, LETTER TO PRIVACY COMMISSION

DEC 22/2008, LETTER TO MRS. SANTINO

DEC 08/2008, LETTER TO MRS. SANTINO

TAB 14 SECTION 22.1 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT

TAB 15 LAW SOCIETY HEARING OF UPPER CANADA V. RAYMOND LI

TAB 15 APPEAL-LAW SOCIETY HEARING OF UPPER CANADA V. LI

TAB 18 EI COMMISSION-RESPONDENT’S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

[504] The Plaintiff further alleges that he articulated the package attention to Paul Richard’s in the following manner;

“RE: Attention Mr. Paul Richard (File: 7100-010299)

I am sending some documents to assist in the investigation.

Take notice of para[12], para[13], para[47], para[48], para[49], and para[50] of the RESPONDENT’S MOTION RECORD, and also tab 12.

________________________________________________________________

Asper your letter, here are some documents to help with your investigation. I pray that they will be useful in your search for the truth.

• in tab 20, para [50], of the RESPONDENT’S MOTION RECORD, the EI Commission assert that the information in question was not really needed;

• 20/11/2008, FINE ORDER OF ONT/MINA GIORDANO disclosed document under tab 12, shows the EI Commission had obtained the information in question on there own.”

[505] The Plaintiff allege that, on the 7^th of March 2011 the Applicant served on the Privacy Commission a formal request for all personal information. Marie-Josee Trudel, articulated the disclosing of the said information in the following manner;

”...I am pleased to enclose the releasable information which is relevant to your request. However, please note that all the documents related to the Privacy investigation 7100-010299 has been withheld by virtue of section 22.1(1) of the Act, since the investigation is still ongoing...”

[506] The Plaintiff allege that, on the 3^rd of August 2011 he files a formal complainant with the FEDERAL OMBUDSMAN against THE FEDERAL INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSION, Paul Richard(7100-010299), and Paulette (NQ-002353) after a conversation with Paul Richard; wherein he learned that after many many months nothing had been done to remedy his Privacy complaint against the Employment Insurance Commission. The Plaintiff articulated to the OMBUDSMAN the following;

“ PROBLEM: The Federal IPC has been investigating matter (NQ-002353) SINCE 2008 and has been unable to conclude its investigation, render an opinion or direction or even given a written articulated progress report. I am alleging BIAS or UNREASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS in the Federal IPC Tribunal’s adjudicative process.”

[507] The Plaintiff further allege that the OMBUDSMAN seems to infer their was an ethical problem but appear to be powerless to do anything.

[508] The Plaintiff allege that, on the 22^nd of February 2012, he filed a civil action against THE FEDERAL INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSION, Paul Richard(7100-010299), and Paulette (NQ-002353) by way of Notice of Action.

[509] The Plaintiff further alleges, that the Privacy commission sent a letter dismissing the Applicant complaint after the action was already commence or had been set into motion. Chantal Bernier articulated the results of the investigation in the following manner;

“following the investigation into your complaint, I have concluded that the matter is not well-founded.”

Furthermore, it took the Privacy Commission from 2008 to 2012 to answer one question with respect to the disclosure of court documentation for matter 07-02559, which was still in the process of Appeal; furthermore, the issue was within the context of privacy rights, which the Employment Insurance Commission matter was dependent on and has been long concluded.

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (08-0530/CUB 2009-0494):

[510] The Plaintiff allege that, there has been Bias or a reasonable apprehension of Bias by the Employment Insurance Commission Benefit Entitlement adjudicative process in favour of the Employment Insurance Commission.

[511] The Plaintiff allege that, there has been a violation or Breach of the Applicant’s Confidence, Breach of the Applicant’s Trust, and a breach of the contract obligation of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION against it’s client Wayne FERRON, with respect to a fair and impartial investigation and adjudication to resolve contended issues, and make a just determination on Benefit Entitlement, in a reasonable amount of time and within the constraints of Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice.

[512] The Plaintiff further allege that, the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE unfair denial of SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT has acted as an impediment in erecting or reinforcing a financial barrier to accessing justice in the justice determination of Criminal matters.

[513] The Plaintiff further allege that, the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE unfair denial of SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT in conjunction with with the Federal Government policy, is not only transferring Federal Social Security obligations to Provincial Governments, but also vicariously effecting the fairness, equity and proper administration of justice in the Criminal Judicial Process. Furthermore, their is an impedance to accessing justice.

J. SANTINO(08-0530):

[514] The Plaintiff allege that, on or about the 9^th of December 2008, J. SANTINO enforced a denial of natural just for an appeal of right and in contravention of Section 7, 11(b), and 11(d) of the Charter and Section 1. of the Human Rights Act and Section 1. and Section 2. of the BILL OF RIGHTS. In denying the Plaintiff an Appeal of right for undisclosed private court documents which the Employment Commission has conceded to not being necessary for Employment Insurance Benefit Entitlement determination.

Appeal to board of referees

114. (1) A claimant or other person who is the subject of a decision of the Commission, or the employer of the claimant, may appeal to the board of referees in the prescribed manner at any time within

(a) 30 days after the day on which a decision is communicated to them; or

(b) such further time as the Commission may in any particular case for

special reasons allow.

[514] The Plaintiff further allege that, Ms. J. Santino and Insurance Agent acting in the capacity of an Employment Insurance adjudicator articulates her enforcement of denial of Appeal of Right and denial of natural justice in the following manner;

“In your case you lost your employment with Intek Communications Inc. on 24-9-2008 as you were no longer able to fulfill the employment contract due to a loss or suspension of your driver's license. By losing your driver's license, you breached an express obligation of your work contract; this failure resulted in the loss of your employment.

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

As I advised you by phone 8-12- 2008, a copy of the notice of suspension or a copy of the driving prohibition in which the conditions for the suspension are required in order to proceed with your appeal. In order to expedite matters please fax the above to my attention immediately.

Your appeal will not be heard until the documents are received.”

[515] The Applicant further alleges that, the Federal Privacy Commission of Canada failed to investigate and make a fair and just determination within the context of the status of the documents at issue in Ms. J. Santino’s above articulation, in a reasonable time which would be beneficial to all parties.

Appeal to umpire

115. (1) An appeal as of right to an umpire from a decision of a board of referees

may be brought by

(a) the Commission;

(b) a claimant or other person who is the subject of a decision of the

Commission;

(d) an association of which the claimant or employer is a member.

[516] The Applicant further alleges that, he gave all the relevant information to the EI Commission to legally obtain the documents at issue itself. Further, The EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION asserts that the copy of the notice of suspension was not in itself essential to conclude that the Appellant was not eligible to receive any benefits based on misconduct.

[517] The Plaintiff further alleges that, the EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION’s articulates the aforesaid in it’s Respondent’s Motion Record in the following manner;

“50. Finally, the copy of the notice of suspension was not in itself essential to conclude that the Appellant was not eligible to receive any benefits based on misconduct. The Commission had sufficient information to conclude to misconduct but still needed a copy of the driver’s suspension notice in order to complete the file as provided by the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision Granstrom.”

[518] The Plaintiff further alleges that, Ms. Joanne Santino’s actions of denying the Applicant an appeal of right for a significant period of time without lawful cause, while she was acting in the capacity of an Agent of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION’s, was a malicious action.

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, PROCESS:

[519] The Plaintiff alleges that, the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, appears to be working backwards in its adjudication for Social Security Benefit entitlement.

Human Rights

1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1).

Agent of Her Majesty

26. (1) The Commission is a body corporate and is for all purposes an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada and it may exercise its powers only as an agent of Her Majesty in that right.

[520] The Plaintiff alleges that, the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, seem to be effecting the following task in the given sequential order in its process of determination of Benefit Entitlement. The following seems to be the case;

1. MISCONDUCT PROVEN;

2. ADJUDICATION;

3. FINDING OF FACT-INVESTIGATION;

4. DEMAND FOR CONVICTION PAPERS;

5. DENIAL OF APPEAL OF RIGHT.

[521] If the aforesaid is the case, then the Plaintiff further allege that the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, adjudicative process for Benefit Entitlement for Social Security Benefits is inherently bias against EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION’s clients who are charged, or maliciously prosecuted, or navigating the Appeal process in the Canadian Judicial System in the search for the just determination of a pending matter.

[522] The Plaintiff further alleges that, their seems to be a determination of judgement first, then an investigation or finding of facts to support the already determined adjudication.

[523] The Plaintiff further alleges that, their seem to be a predetermination of the conclusion or consequence, the the investigation finding of facts, and then the premise is formulated. Furthermore, their seem to be logical fallacies in the flow of the process in the determination of Benefit Entitlement.

[524] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on November 6, 2008 at 9:50:30 AM LY Frank made the following adjudication;

a) Disqualification and Disentitlement;

b) misconduct has been proven;

c) Digest 7.4.1 - lost of Employment;

d) Digest 7.3.5.5 - Criminal Offences

e) Granstrom - A - 444 - 02;

f) loss of Drivers License - Borden - A - 338 - 03

[525] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on November 6, 2008 LY Frank completed the following task;

a) Denial of Benefit Letter;

b) misconduct has been determined;

[526] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on November 20, 2008 Mina Giordano completed the following task;

a) Find Order Province of Ontario;

c) Details of Conviction;

[527] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on November 20, 2008 Joanne Santino completed the following task or effected the following actions;

a) Denial of Appeal/ Demand for Court Documents Letter;

b) denial of Appeal of Right;

c) demand for court documents;

[528] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on November 27, 2008 the following document review or task were completed;

a) Insurance Directory Memorandum (IDM);

b) Drivers License suspension flow chart;

c) suspension flow chart; “BLOOD/BREATH ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT A DRIVER’S BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS 5 ALCOHOL IN 100 ML OF BLOOD; OR DRIVER REFUSES TO PROVIDE TO BREATH/BLOOD SAMPLE”

d) fact finding;

e) claim prep;

f) Agents search Agora;

[529] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on December 23, 2008 Joanne Santino affirms her November 20, 2008 denial of an appeal of right decision;

DECISION DETAILS “HE HAS NOT SUPPLIED A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OR CITATION. I BELIEVE A D15 MUST BE IMPOSED PENDING THIS DOCUMENT”

[530] The Plaintiff alleges that, the Honourable Justice Kenkel rendered his conviction judgement on 26^th of September 2008. A Judgement of guilty on all counts was rendered by the presiding Judge.

On count 2; Suspended sentence and 12 months probation with conditions.

On count 3; One year driving prohibition with $600.00 fine and license confiscation. The accused would have to attend anger counseling, drug and alcohol testing and psychological evaluation. The accused medical records would be open to the courts.

[531] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 27^th of September 2008, the Applicant informed Intek of the lost of his Driver’s License.

[532] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 28^th of September 2008, the Applicant applied for EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE social security benefit entitlement in accordance with the contractual agreement with the above stated Crown Corporation, since the Applicant was no longer able to function in full capacity as an installation/repair technician.

[533] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 23^rd of October 2008, the Applicant file an Appeal of Right against conviction on the bases of miscarriage of justice, in the Superior Court of Justice Central East Region, Newmarket.

[534] The Plaintiff alleges that, on or about the 5^th of November 2008, Intek sent him a formal termination letter which state as follows;

“due to your unforeseen circumstances, effective September 24th, 2008 your employment with Intek Communications ceased.”

[535] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 6^th of November 2008, the Applicant received a letter stating that his application for Employment Insurance benefits was refused on the basis of misconduct committed during his employment at Intek Communication Inc.

Section 30 of the EI Commission Acts

30. (1) A claimant is disqualified

from receiving any benefits if the

claimant lost any employment

because of their misconduct or

voluntarily left any employment

without just cause,...

[536] The Plaintiff alleges that, Intek’s termination(September 24, 2008), of the Plaintiff’s employment precedes or predates Justice Kenkel Judgement Conviction(September 26, 2008).

[537] The Plaintiff further allege that, It is a logical fallacy to base Misconduct on Justice Kenkel’s Judgement conviction, on September 26, 2008; when the Plaintiff Employment was already terminated by Intek on September 24, 2008. Moreover, their is no logical truthfulness, or soundness to the inference of cause and effect. Lost of employment(the consequence), is a necessary condition for the cause, of lost of licence(the premise or antecedent). The hypothesis used to justify Employment Insurance adjudication is logically false and therefore invalid.

[538] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 24^th of October 2008, the Applicant was working in London(Ontario), on lone for one to two weeks from Intek to Rogers Cable. As a result of previously asking for the 24^th and 25^th of October 2008 off, which were is regular schedule 2 days off, he was asked to go home.

[539] The Plaintiff further allege that, the Applicant regularly worked the weekends. He had arranged his schedule this way because the trial hearings for his pending criminal matter in court was done on Fridays. This ensured that the Applicant court appearance did not interfere with his regular work. The Plaintiff did not take the following occurrence as being fired, he was on loan to Rogers and was not a direct employee for Rogers. But worked in the capacity of a subcontractor who was an Intek employee. This is how things are done in that business at this present time. He even worked a half day on the 24^th of October 2008 asper requested by the Rogers active manager in London Ontario, to cover for another Technician who was also on lone, but sick for that day.

[540] The Plaintiff further allege that, It was not until the Employment Insurance Commission and Intek’s concurrent “Notice of Disqualification” and “Letter of Termination” respectively asserted that the Applicant lost his employment on the 24^th of October 2008; that the Applicant started to inquire and seek confirmation of the date he lost his employment to no avail.

[541] The Plaintiff alleges that, the Applicant is left no choice but to accept the date of 24^th of October 2008, concurrently given by the Employment Insurance Commission , Intek Communication Inc., and the officially issued ROE as the official date of the Plaintiff’s lost of employment.

[542] The Plaintiff allege that, Chapter 7(7.3.5.5) of the Employment Insurance Commission’s Digest of Benefit Entitlement Principles, asserts as follows;

“The fact of having a record of convictions can be a serious obstacle in the way of someone seeking employment. As a result, it is fairly common for someone not to reveal the existence of a conviction record when hired - right up until the day the employer learns about this record and decides to dismiss the worker for this reason. Misconduct does not exist in such circumstances. “

[543] The Plaintiff further allege that, Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, states as follows;

22.1 (1) Proof that a person has been convicted or discharged anywhere in Canada of a crime is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the crime was committed by the person, if,

(a) no appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken and the time for an appeal has expired; or

(b) an appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken but was

dismissed or abandoned and no further appeal is available.

[544] The Plaintiff allege that, the BOARD OF REFEREEs, heard the Appeal(08-0530); But, not in accordance with a fair, equitable and judicially independent hearing. It did not conformed to the legal definition of an “HEARING” or PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.

[545] The Plaintiff further allege that, the BOARD OF REFEREE dismiss the Appeal. The Board of Referees “rubber stamped” the Appeal’s(08-0530) determination in the Commission’s favour.

[546] The Plaintiff further allege that, the BOARD OF REFEREE fraudulently(no citation) used KIM CHRISTOFFERSON(E.I. Sales Agent) submission and changed it to read as though it was an articulation or disposition from the same Independent Board. Furthermore Kim Christofferson was acting in the capacity of Agent of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION.

[547] The Plaintiff Allege that, the aforesaid was demonstrated at the Hearing Appeal before the UMPIRE(CUB 2009-0494). The Applicant asked for certified copy of Transcription for the Hearing(08-0530) before the Board, and he was denied them. He was given a audio copy(cassette tape) of the Hearing in an inaccessible, but reliable format dependent on obsolete technology. This is inconsistent with the Canadian Attorney General’s Directive on disclosure.

[548] The Plaintiff further allege that, the aforesaid run contrary to Section 18.7, of the Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook;

“18.7 Form of Disclosure⁷⁶

Crown counsel may provide the defence with copies of documents that fall within the scope of “basic disclosure” materials as defined in s. 18.6 in either a paper format (e.g., photocopies) or an electronic format (e.g., by CD-ROM)⁷⁷. Where the accused is unrepresented, Crown counsel should generally provide copies of such documents in a paper format⁷⁸.”

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO:

1. RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF: FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2. Tort of Negligent Government Activity, to which The Attorney General of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada are vicariously liable.

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

4. CAUSE OF ACTION at O.C.J-LEAVE TO APPEAL: breach of confidence and trust, malicious prosecution, suppression/denial of evidence, abuse of process, denial of natural justice, denial of evidence(M38706), denial of legal right, denial of Social Security Benefits(E.I.), financial barrier to accessing justice, artificial administrative barrier to accessing justice, wilful damaging of Plaintiff matter C51190, malicious procurement of legal instruments COURT OF APPEAL DUPTY REGISTRAR- Sandra Theroulde ONTARIO WORKS/SALVATION ARMY WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM/PEEL REGIONAL POLICE- slander/libel, assault, aggravated assault, false arrest, unlawful confinement, BREACH OF TRUST, CONTRAVENTION OF INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, NEGLIGENCE OF DUTY OWED TO CANADIANS, AND CONTRAVENTION OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS; is the right to be represented by competent legal professional advocate, a false right?

CHECKS AND BALANCE OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS:

[549] The Plaintiff Allege that, he called 911 EMERGENCY SERVICE in the REGION OF PEEL, to report an assault and ask for help; the Applicant was simply arrested without lawful excuse and imprisoned in a Mental Institution for 14 days with out lawful excuse, without the opportunity to instruct a lawyer or the opportunity to challenge the merits of same detention before an impartial tribunal.

[550] The Plaintiff Allege that, he went to a COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION in the REGION OF PEEL, to file an information in accordance with Section 504. of the Criminal Code of Canada for the same assault; the Applicant was refused his legal right with out lawful excuse. So he asked to be arrested instead to initiate an official record of the occurrence, so he was promptly arrested for attempting to file an information in the Justice of the peace intake office.

[551] The Plaintiff Allege that, he filed many formal complaint’s to YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(YRP), to no avail.

[552] The Plaintiff Allege that, he filed many formal complaint’s to The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services(OCCPS), to no avail.

[553] The Plaintiff Allege that, he filed many formal complaint’s to ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, to no avail.

[554] The Plaintiff Allege that, he filed many formal complaint’s to ONTARIO OMBUDSMAN, to no avail.

[555] The Plaintiff Allege that, he filed many formal complaint’s to ONTARIO LABOUR BOARD, for health and safety concerns to no avail.

[556] The Plaintiff Allege that, he filed many formal complaint’s to the FEDERAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, to no avail.

[557] The Plaintiff Allege that, he filed a formal complaint’s to FEDERAL OMBUDSMAN, to no avail.

[558] The Plaintiff Allege that, he filed a formal complaint’s to FEDERAL INFORMATION AND PRIVACY, to no avail.

[559] The Plaintiff Allege that, he filed a formal complaint’s to the CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNSEL, to no avail.

[560] The Plaintiff allege that, only the ONTARIO INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSION has given most of his complaint’s due process along with prudent response, adjudication and resolution. Most other federal and provincial government institutions complaint has failed in this regard. Most simple did not give a formal response and acknowledge the Applicant’s existence as a Canadian with rights and freedom.

LEGAL AID ONTARIO:

[561] The Plaintiff allege that, the right to be represented by competent legal professional advocate is a false right inducing inequity in law.

[562] The Plaintiff further allege that, their is an inequity in the proper administration of Justice for the enforcement and application of the Criminal Code.

[563] The Plaintiff allege that, on are about the 1^st of May 2007 the Applicant was refused financially assistance to change his daughter’s last name to obtain a health card; The original one from her birth had expired and a Clerk at the OHP had advised the Plaintiff to changes her last name, since they were different. Furthermore, LEGAL AID ONTARIO, gave the Applicant 10 DAYS TO APPEAL REFUSED APPLICATION FOR LEGAL AID, for CASE NUMBER: 1442097.

[564] The Plaintiff allege that, on are about the 4^th of December 2008 the Applicant filed an appeal for LEGAL AID ONTARIO refusal to give financial assistance to the Plaintiff for his criminal matter(07-02500/07-02559) defence. Furthermore, LEGAL AID ONTARIO, gave the Applicant 10 DAYS TO APPEAL REFUSED APPLICATION FOR LEGAL AID, and, 14 DAYS TO FILE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR APPEAL for CASE NUMBER: 1403725.

[565] The Plaintiff allege that, on are about the 15^th of December 2008 the Applicant received LEGAL AID ONTARIO, NOTICE OF DECISION ON APPEAL, NUMBER#: 1403725; the Plaintiff appeal from decision to refuse application was refused for his criminal matter(07-02559). LEGAL AID ONTARIO, articulated its decision in the following manner;

“THIS IS A FINAL DECISION. I AM SORRY WE ARE UNABLE

TO ASSIST YOU”

[566] The Plaintiff further allege that, the official given reason for the aforesaid is;

“LEGAL AID ASSISTANCE IS NOT AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WHERE NO CUSTODIAL SENTENCE HAS BEEN IMPOSED, AS IN THIS CASE.”

[567] The Plaintiff allege that, on are about the 12^th of March 2012 the Applicant received LEGAL AID ONTARIO, Application Conformation NUMBER#: 2072889 for Client Number: CLT1413162 for a criminal matter(C55190). LEGAL AID ONTARIO, articulated its decision in the following manner;

“This letter is to confirm that you have completed an application for legal aid. A decision about whether you are eligible for legal aid has not yet been made.”

[568] The Plaintiff allege that, on are about the 17^th of April 2012 the Applicant received a letter from LEGAL AID ONTARIO, CASE NUMBER: 2080927 for Client Number: CLT1413162 for a criminal matter(C55190). LEGAL AID ONTARIO, articulated its decision in the following manner(SECTION 28);

“On the basis of the information before the area committee, this is to advise that the area committee has refused your application for legal aid dated 26 March, 2012:

{...}

The sentence impose does not include incarceration or the custodial portion of the sentence has been served. Legal Aid coverage does not extend to appeals of conviction or sentence where the sentence imposed does not include incarceration or the custodial portion of the sentence has been served.

”

The Plaintiff was Appealing a decision from the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL(C51190) to the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA on a question of law and on the legal basis of denial of NATURAL JUSTICE, Legal Aid was sent an original copy with proof of service of the NOTICE OF APPEAL. Furthermore, LEGAL AID ONTARIO, gave the Applicant 7 DAYS TO APPEAL REFUSED APPLICATION FOR LEGAL AID.

[569] The Plaintiff allege that, on are about the 2^nd of May 2012 the Applicant received a letter from LEGAL AID ONTARIO(Linda Hall), CASE NUMBER: 2080927 for Client Number: CLT1413162 for a criminal matter(C55190). LEGAL AID ONTARIO, articulated its NOTICE OF DECISION ON APPEAL in the following manner(SECTION 12 & 30(2));

“The appeal from the decision of the Area Committee at Toronto refusing a legal aid certificate in order to appeal to the Supreme Court of canada, from the decision of the Court of Appeal, dated January 26, 2012, dismissing an appeal of conviction and sentence on charges of resisting arrest and dangerous driving has been refused.

”

The Plaintiff was Appealing a decision from the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL(C51190) to the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA on a question of law on the legal basis of denial of NATURAL JUSTICE, Legal Aid was again sent a copy of the NOTICE OF APPEAL in addition to proof for a case of voidable informations based on false oaths.

[570] The Honourable Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry, asserts the importance of LEGAL AID to society at large in her following articulation upon the opening of the courts of the COURTS OF ONTARIO for 2006;

“LEGAL AID

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“the disappearing civil trial”.

(Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry, UPON THE OPENING OF THE COURTS OF ONTARIO FOR 2006,

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/coa/http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/coa/en/archives/ocs/2006.htm)

ARTIFICIALLY CREATED AND MAINTAINED BARRIER TO ACCESSING JUSTICE:

[571] The Plaintiff alleges that, THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, asserts that there is a relation ship or dependence between the plaintiff Criminal matter(07-02559/C51190) and the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION’s Benefit Entitlement of Social Security matter(08-0530/CUB 2009-0494). The EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION articulates it’s position in the following manner;

“Based on the documentation received, it is our understanding that the Mr. Ferron is in the process of appealing his criminal convictions. The present is to request that the appeal before the Umpire be stayed until the completion of Mr. Ferron's appeal of his criminal convictions. The Commission asserts that both issues are related and the final outcome of Mr. Ferron's appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal will have an impact on the Commission's position in the present matter. In the event that the Umpire is not of the view that justice would be better served by a stay of procedure, the Commission respectfully request an extension of time for the filling of the respondent's motion record in the above appeal. As you are aware, the appellant's appeal raises a multitude of issues related to the constitutionality of Employment Insurance Act that require the respondent to obtain the input and approval of the contents of the respondent's record from several stakeholders within the Government of Canada. The respondent requires additional time to complete this process and respectfully request an extension of time until April 26, 2010...“

[572] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 23^rd of October 2008, the Applicant file an appeal against the conviction on the bases of miscarriage of justice, in the Superior Court of Justice (Central East Region) in Newmarket; by way of Form 2, given to him by the Registrar.

[573] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 3^rd of November 2008, the Applicant was given permission to speak to the Superior Court of Justice on the record;

• the Plaintiff surrendered his drivers licence to the court.

• the Plaintiff informed the court of his destitution and inability to afford the trial transcripts.

• the fact that he could no longer make support payments for his 3 baby girls.

• the position of Legal Aid, not finically supporting criminal appeals lacking incarceration.

• the Court sent him to the Duty Counsel. The Duty Counsel wondered why he was sent! Given that Legal Aid does not support Criminal Appeals lacking incarcerations.

• the Duty Counsel sent him to a Legal Aid representative in the Newmarket Courthouse; who declared that “Legal Aid does not support criminal appeals without incarceration. “

• the Applicant went to the Legal Aid office which had his file and demanded that a file be open for criminal appeal or he be given an official letter stating that Legal Aide does not fund criminal appeals. The Ontario Legal Aid officially opened a file for the Applicant’s criminal appeal for financial support. This was done reluctantly by legal Aid, given the fact that it was the second time he was requesting there services for the said purpose.

[574] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 6^th of November 2008, the Applicant received a letter stating that his application for EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, benefits was refused on the basis of misconduct committed during his employment at Intek Communication Inc.

[575] The Plaintiff alleges that, In the APPLICATION RECORD FOR MOTION FOR DIRECTION(07-02559), at the NEWMARKET SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, wherein there are copies of Legal Aid letters informing the Applicant of his denial of legal aid benefits and the quashing of his subsequent legal aid appeal. There is a letter from Employment Insurance informing the Plaintiff of his disqualification of benefits. This does not encourage a prudent facilitation of the appeal with due diligence for an indigent Accused who is impecunious. But instead induce the false impression of an impassable impediment to perfecting the appeal. This created a “legal barrier to entry” for the same APPEAL.

[576] The Plaintiff alleges that, All the following nine factors combined to form the “perfect legal storm” which created an artificial impediment; which denied the Applicant the right to an unimpeded appeal, to the Superior Court of Justice Appellate Court, and the subsequent violations of NATURAL JUSTICE, THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF JUSTICE and abuse of the process;

1. failing to recognize, identify or except that the reckless disregard for the truth has been demonstrated in materials before the court.

2. denying the Applicant the privilege to be heard and the Right to argue his position within the context of preparing, perfecting and executing the Superior Court of Justice Appeal. Is in effect silencing the Applicant;

3. there is an unwritten but understood and enforced Rule or necessary condition of financial payment or down payments, before the production of the Transcriptions of Evidence at Newmarket Courthouse begins. This Rules work’s well most of the time, except for someone who fits the Applicant’s profile of indigent, financially destitute, unrepresented and denied financial help by Ontario Legal Aid;

4. the Ontario Legal Aid legislation and official policy and protocols for the qualification of Legal Aid benefits;

5. the unreasonable expectation of the Crown;

6. the expectation of the Superior Court of Justice, Appellate Court;

7. the Application of the Appeal process at the Newmarket Superior Court of justice;

8. the financial status and profile of the Appellant;

9. the lack of effort or willingness of Legal Professionals to represent when police brutality, racial profiling is alleged. The few that are willing, let you know that it is an extremely expensive endeavor to defend yourself against the Police (the Crown’s public agents). One lawyer reaction was to state “good-luck with that!” After the Applicant plead his cause to him.

[577] The Plaintiff alleges that, the aforementioned conditions created an, “ARTIFICIAL FINANCIAL BARRIER TO LEGAL RIGHTS”, a “LEGAL, BARRIER TO ENTRY”, 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 or 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.

[578] The Plaintiff alleges that, this is a violation of S. 7, S. 11(d), and S. 15 of the Charter. Similarly a violation of S. 1 of the Human Rights Act and S. 1(a), 1(b), and 2(e) of the Bill of Rights and Article 14 of THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.

[579] The Plaintiff alleges that, the application of the Code was tainted and coloured by systemic racism during the initial investigation which encouraged an unlawful enforcement of the Code. This caused bias or reasonable apprehension of bias, which intern produce a lack of fairness in the process. Furthermore, byway of “fruits of a poisons tree” the prosecution which lacks parliamentary support, infected and perforated all dependent occurrences which came after(CUB 2009-0494, PR 09-198646, PR11-268181, PR 11-268834, 09-14407) the initial occurrence( 07-70285 /07-02500)

[580] The Plaintiff alleges that, the presiding Justice over a summary conviction trial has an obligation to ensure that the accuse receive a fair and equitable trial. Ontario Legal Aid had denied the Applicant financial assistance. A typical lawyer cost $1500.00 retainer fee and $300 per hour if the case goes to trial.

[581] The Plaintiff alleges that, once one is receiving Employment benefit or even Welfare, this may be enough to deny one Legal Aid Benefits. The requirements to receive legal Aid benefits is very stringent. The Applicant advised the courts that he was not able to afford a Lawyer and he had no choice but to defend himself byway of unrepresented litigation. The consequences of the afore said is well articulated in R. v. Rowbotham, which is articulated in the following manner;

“Consequently, an accused who was too poor to hire a lawyer was disadvantaged. Sir James Stephen, writing over 100 years ago, said: "[w]hen a prisoner is undefended his position is often pitiable, even if he has a good case". (Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England, vol. 1 (1883), p. 442). In R. v. Littlejohn and Tirabasso (1978), 41 C.C.C. (2d) 161, this court accepted as self-evident the proposition that a person charged with a serious offence is under a grave disadvantage if, for any reason, he is deprived of the assistance of competent counsel: see p. 173. However, in modern times but prior to the advent of the Charter, the concept of the right to counsel had evolved into a social right or a human right implying an obligation on the state to provide counsel for an accused who lacks sufficient means to pay a lawyer: “

PRIVATE INFORMATION (S. 504, 507, 508, 523, 540)

[582] The Plaintiff alleges that, many months after his 14 days unlawful imprisonment for trying to file an Information(Court file No.: 12-1912) against Officer Pekeski(2261) of the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES for assaults which took place on September 25 and 26, 2011; he again attempted to make his complaint for the second time at GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE.

[583] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 21^st of December 2011 between 10:30 and 11:30 a.m., he signed in at the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE at, BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE. Their was two Officers who came after him, who were serve and appear to be successfully filing informations.

[584] The Plaintiff alleges that, the Clerks fail to call him, so he inquired why he was not called even though all personal in the room with the Applicant had been served and new people were being served who came long after him.

[585] The Plaintiff alleges that, the Clerk advised that he should have spoken to her after he had signed in and private informations can only be filed between 08:30 a.m. and 10:30 am monday to Thursday. This is a very narrow window with a high impedance for seeking the ends of justice, especially if your are traumatized, working or impecunious and time is of the essence. After the long wait the Applicant left with the intension of returning the next day even If, he would more than likely have to walk home for two hours because he impecunious and only had one last bust ticket. The affects and hardships these artificial constrains, these “barriers to entry in accessing justice” cause is never considered even though the same constraints are not in accordance with the Criminal Code and the Charter or has the blessings of Parliamentary legislation.

[586] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 22^nd of December 2011 at 8:30 and 11:30 a.m., he signed in at the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OFFICE at, BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE. He was the first person to sign in except for Officer 3621 1^st Reynolls.

Others who came after the Applicant on the said day went before him;

to the Applicant’s understanding, the 1st Justice of the peace starts work at 8:30 a.m. and the next Justice of the Peace starts 9:00 a.m. The Applicant was told by the Clerk, that Officers are given priority, but only two Officers were present with the Applicant during the early morning;

(i) at 8:23 a.m. their was Officer 3621 1st Reynolls;

(ii) the Plaintiff signed in at 8:30 a.m.;

(iii) at 9:00 a.m. their was Officer Cst 3621 Trcaja;

(iv) at 9:00 a.m. their was Officer 2209 Kinna;

(v) and at 9:22 a.m. their was Officer 2960 Cst Laine.

[587] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 22^nd of December 2011, after a very, very long wait time he was able to file a Private Information(Court file No.: 12-1912) against Officer Pekeski(2261).

[588] The Plaintiff alleges that, after the completion of filing the private information against Officer Perkins(2261), he discovered that he had been disclosed a false name by THE PEEL POLICE AND Officer Perkins(2261), whose name is legally Pekeski(2261). Furthermore, this is a blatant obstruction of justice.

[589] The Plaintiff alleges that, that, on 3^nd of February 2012, he returned to the GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, to file a replacement information against Officer Pekeski in addition to other informations.

[590] The Plaintiff alleges that, the private information (Court file No.: 12-1912) against Officer Pekeski(5561), which was suppose to be heard on February 8, 2012 in courtroom 206 to finding process, was adjourned to March 14, 2012 on consent because the court was not able to address the matter on that day.

[591] The Plaintiff alleges that, the private information (Court file No.: 12-1912) against Officer Pekeski(2261), which was to heard on March 14, 2012 , in courtroom 206 was adjourned by the court to May 2, 2012, in courtroom 206 for reasons of Impartiality, the fairness of the process to an unrepresented litigant was pointed to.

[592] The Plaintiff alleges that, he is not all together convinced that the other private informations he filed, some of which was sent to the NEWMARKET, ONTARIO PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE; was done for reasons of Impartiality reasons, and to ensure the fairness of the process to an unrepresented litigant within the meaning of Section 504, 507, 508, 523, and 540 of the Criminal Code of Canada and Section 15 of the Charter.

[593] The Plaintiff alleges that, because of is financial destitution, he found it impossible to attend the NEWMARKET, ONTARIO PROVINCIAL COURT OF JUSTICE, to give evidence in finding process for the relevant pending private informations on March 19, 2012. The Plaintiff -$15.00 in the bank, it would take about 3 days to walk to Newmarket from the farthest Western part of Mississauga.

[594] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on March 19, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M.;

he call NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE, Criminal Court Office(905-853-4809);

the Criminal Court Office, transfer him to the Crown’s Office(905 895 8778);

Crown’s Office, transferred him to the Duty Counsel Office;

Duty Counselor advised, that they do not do Private Information Hearings, nor are the allowed to do private informations, after I explained that I was simplly seeking an adjournment to the schedule hearing because it was impossible to attend it on that day.

[595] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on March 19, 2012 ;

he call NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE for the second time, Criminal Court Office(905-853-4809); the Criminal Court Office, transfer him to the Judges Cambers, SUPERIOR COURT, (905 895 8778); Judges Cambers, transferred him to the Crown’s Office;

the Crown’s Office, transferred him to the Duty Counsel Office; the Duty Counselor advised, that they do not do Private Information Hearings, nor are the allowed to do private informations, after I explained that I was simplly seeking an adjournment to the schedule hearing because it was impossible to attend it on that day.

[596] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on March 19, 2012;

he call NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE for the third time, Criminal Court Office(905-853-4809); the Criminal Court Office, transfer him to the Crown’s Office(905 895 8778);

the Crown’s Office, advised that the court is not a “Doctors office”, furthermore the Applicant would have to be their in-person to adjourn the matter. The Clerk of the Crown’s Office ask the Plaintiff for his name so she could do a search on it. He told her his name was WAYNE FERRON, and he spelled it(W-A-Y-N-E F-E-R-R-O-N. The clerk advised , that “it is impossible to adjourn matters on the phone”. The Plaintiff asked her about fairness, and if she would allow the presiding justice to rule against him in an unforeseen circumstances. The Clerk ended the call prematurely and hang up the phone.

[597] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on March 19, 2012 ;

he call NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE for the forth time, Criminal Court Office(905-853-4809); the Criminal Court Office, the Duty Counsel Office; the Duty Counselor advised, that they do not do Private Information Hearings, nor are the allowed to attend private Informations, after I explained that I was simplly seeking an adjournment to the schedule hearing because it was impossible to attend it on that day. The Duty Counsel advise the Plaintiff to call the Trial Scheduling Office.

[598] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on March 19, 2012 ;

he call NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE , Trial Scheduling Office(905 853 4817);

the Trial Scheduling Office, Clerk advised she would give my message for adjournment to the Duty Counsel.

[599] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on March 19, 2012 before 10:30 a.m. ;

he call NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE , Trial Scheduling Office(905 853 4817);

the Trial Scheduling Office, Clerk advised transferred the Plaintiff to the out of town Crown(Mr Frank Giordano), he advised the matter had been dismissed for want of prosecution by Justice Karolle.

[600] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on March 19, 2012 before 10:30 a.m.;

at the NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE, ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, his private information were dismissed for want of prosecution in less than 1 hour, while the private information filed against Officer Pekeski(2261)has not been heard, even though it was filed many months before the Informations at newmarket were filed.

[601] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on March 19, 2012 Mr. Frank Giordano engaged the Honourable Justice Karolle in a 11/12 pages of the TRANSCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE, in an hypothetical argument in what seem to be a HEARING or judicial proceeding void of the presence of the opposing party; for the apparent purpose to have the private information’s dismissed and put in place or enable an estoppel writ against the informant while the Informant was not present at hearing or capable of mountain an effective rebuttal in accordance with Procedural Fairness rights or Natural Justice or in accordance with the notion of OPEN PERSUASION an in accordance with the Federal Govern Policies and the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA case law.

[602] The Plaintiff further alleges that, Frank Giordano Assistant Crown Attorney, is an out of town Prosecutor bound by a special duty of independence and impartiality in the criminal matters before the court in newmarket to ensure fairness and equity to the unrepresented Informant.

“PROSECUTORS DISCRETION:

4 THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Decisions to prosecute, stay proceedings or launch an appeal must be made in accordance with legal criteria. Two important principles flow from this proposition. First, prosecution decisions may take into account the public interest,1 but must not include any consideration of the political implications of the decision. Second, no investigative agency, department of government or Minister of the Crown may instruct pursuing or discontinuing a particular prosecution or undertaking a specific appeal. These decisions rest solely with the Attorney General (and his or her counsel). The Attorney General must for these purposes be regarded as an independent officer, exercising responsibilities in a manner similar to that of a judge.

The absolute independence of the Attorney General in deciding whether to prosecute and in making prosecution policy is an important constitutional principle in England and Canada. As the Supreme Court stated in Law Society of Alberta v. Krieger²: “It is a constitutional principle in this country that the Attorney General must act independently of partisan concerns when supervising prosecutorial decisions.” In 1925, Viscount Simon, Attorney General of England, made this oft-quoted statement:

I understand the duty of the Attorney-General to be this. He should absolutely decline to receive orders from the Prime Minister, or Cabinet or anybody else that he shall prosecute. His first duty is to see that no one is prosecuted with all the majesty of the law unless the Attorney-General, as head of the Bar, is satisfied that the case for prosecution lies against him. He should receive orders from nobody.³...”

(4, FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK, page 29)

[603] The Plaintiff further alleges that, Assistant Crown Attorney Mr. Frank Giordano is an outside Crown task in acting with a “long arm” or independently of the York Region Crowns. The following is his contact address;

Frank Giordano

Assistant Crown Attorney

1091 Gorham Street, Suite 201

Newmarket, Ontario

(Counsel for Respondent)

This is a YORK REGION ADDRESS!!

[599] The Plaintiff further alleges that, Mr. Frank Giordano Assistant Crown Attorney, return address on his return express mail envelop is;

Crown Attorney’s Office

50 Eagle St. West

Newmarket, L3Y 6B1

Telephone: 905 853 4801

[600] The Plaintiff further alleges that Mr. Frank Giordano whom is bound by special duty of impartiality and independence, should have known or aught to have known that his actionable wrong constituted legal fraud and an attempt to pervert the course of justice, worked to deny the Applicant his legal rights, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK articulates the following;

12.3 Guidelines

12.3.1 Business or personal relationship with a judicial officer

Crown counsel shall not appear before a judicial officer when the lawyer has a business or personal relationship with that officer which might reasonably be perceived to affect the officer's impartiality.

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.

12.3.3 Communicating with judicial officer in contested matters

In a contested cause or matter, Crown counsel shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, with a judicial officer, except:

* in open court;

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

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

* in ex parte matters, as permitted by law.

12.3.4 Meetings in relation to administrative matters

In discussing with judges and court officials matters of government policy that could affect the administration of the courts, Crown counsel shall conduct themselves in such a way as to avoid any possible suggestion that they are improperly attempting to influence or exert pressure on the courts or individual judges in the course of exercising their judicial functions.

12.3.5 Referral to the Committee on Contacts with the Courts

Where there is doubt about whether a particular contact or action involving a Crown counsel is appropriate, counsel shall refer the question to the prosecution group head. If there is still doubt, the question shall be referred to the Department of Justice's Committee on Contact with the Courts.

1 See Part I, Chapter 3, “The Role of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General in Developing and Enforcing the Criminal Law”.

(The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK, section 12, page 90)”

[601] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on March 19, 2012 Mr. Frank Giordano engaged the Honourable Justice Karolle in conversation in the following manner while the Plaintiff was not present at the same HEARING;

“...he couldn’t afford to come here today. He said it’s too expensive. He said that it’s a three hour walk, should he choose to walk and that instead he wished to come back next Monday.

{...}

Nothing is new put before the court by Mr. Ferron. He knew where he lived, which by the information, appears to be Mississauga. If it was three hours today it was three hours Yesterday and it was three hours yesterday and it was three hours when it was set.”

[602] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on March 19, 2012 Mr. Frank Giordano engaged the Honourable Justice Karolle in conversation in the following manner while the Plaintiff was not present at the same HEARING;

“...I Can ask Your Worship to address this on the record, whether in fact we could consider that the pre-enquette hearing, for all intents and purposes, was to be considered today and was commenced because, if so, then the next time he tries to lay a new information he’ll have to click the box saying process has been refused on a previous occasion and then he is estopped from doing so for another ninety days. So I’d like to address the issue”

[603] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on March 19, 2012 Mr. Frank Giordano wilfully attempted to influence a Judicial Officer by a method other than open persuasion for the purpose of colouring the judicial proceeding against the Private Informant in contravention of Rule 4.01 of the RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and Section 12.3.2 THE FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK, which states respectively as follows;

“4.01 THE LAWYER AS ADVOCATE

Advocacy

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

{...}

(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,

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

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

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

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

“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)

[604] The Plaintiff further alleges that, Mr. Frank Giordano on the 19^thof March in the year 2012 at the City of Newmarket in the Regional Municipality of York did, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in the Right of Ontario, in addition to having carriage and control of the Plaintiff Private Prosecution(12-01264 et al) in the process of a PRE-ENQUETTE HEARING for the finding of process, and acting in the capacity of an out of town Assistance Crown Attorney, duly bound by a special mandate of impartiality and independence, did willfully Breach the Plaintiff’s Trust and his duty to the public in the capacity of a Public Officer, by requesting or attempting to induce the Honourable Justice Karolle in her determination issue what seems to be a legal instrument(writ of estoppel) in the absence of open persuasion in contravention of Section. 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[605] The Plaintiff further alleges that, Mr. Frank Giordano assignment to the Plaintiff Private Prosecution(12-01264 et al) was a special assigned duty of independence, and was suppose to be in the spirit of Procedural Fairness, natural justice, and impartiality to the unrepresented Private Prosecutor. An out of town independent Prosecutor whose operating address seems to be Newmarket in the Regional Municipality of YORK.

[606] The Plaintiff further alleges that on July 23, 2012 the new Registrar of the NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE call the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES after becoming frustrated in locating information in the appearance history for court file number 07-02559 and certified Informations(12-01264 et al) with endorsement pursuant to Justice Howden’s Court Order. The plaintiff had requested it a week prior. This was a typical request from the registrar, yet they found it impossible to complete and though it a justified remedy to call an arm POLICE OFFICER even though the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE expected him to complete these task for perfection of the appeals.

[607] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on July 23, 2012 the Registrar of the NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE refuse to disclosed the certified private Informations(12-01264 et al) since they were not served on the accused, even though there was a standing court order with the blessings of the Crown for their production and disclosure. This runs contrary to the Criminal Code because there were no accused and it runs contrary to the due process of Law for the proceedings of private complaints. The Plaintiff pointed the Registrar to Section 507.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, but they demanded an affidavit of service for proof of serving the accuse whom were not yet determined judicially to be accuse. The Plaintiff left the Registrar a second Requisition for the pending promised disclosure.

[608] The Plaintiff further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964), there has not been one single Judicial authority or one single Crown Prosecutor whom has advised or asserted on record or otherwise, that Officer Stribbell’s(529) given testimony, recorded in the July 23, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(07-02559) on page 108 to page 123, does not constitute perjury or support a prima facie case for allegations of perversion of the course of justice. The Plaintiff reasonable believe and does believe that Officer Stribbell’s(529) given July 23, 2008 GIVEN EVIDENCE under oath in open court constitute perjury, is a contravention of the oath he took on the said day, and is a contravention of his duly sworn duty owed to the public; so the Plaintiff filed the July 23, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(07-02559), as an exhibit at the PRE-ENQUETTE HEARING while giving Crown’s council the opportunity to review the same TRANSCRIPT on more than one occasion for his personal logical satisfaction or his employee’s logical satisfaction of the truthfulness of what was being allege.

[609] The Plaintiff further alleges that for matter(Court File No.: 12-02964), at about 13:50 hours on the 10^th of April 2012, at the Newmarket Courthouse Registrar, the Plaintiff signed up to see a Justice of the Peace for the issuing of a subpoena to a witness to give evidence under oath for a PRE-ENQUETTE HEARING(Court File No.: 12-02964) to find process, on May 7, 2012 at the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE(Central East Region).

[610] The Plaintiff further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964), after he was Waiting about 30 minutes, an Officer carrying about 35 files or Briefs for what the Plaintiff reasonable believe and do believe contains at least some informations and warrants, in what seem to be a green or baby blue, two wheel carrying cart; the same Officer sat beside the plaintiff in the queue(first seat closest to the intake office #2) to see Your Worship Justice of the Peace. The Plaintiff knew knew some of the said materials were warrants because Your-Worship said he had to signed some warrants among other things. Likewise, the Plaintiff new some of the documents were Informations(or more accurately the police document which proceeds the Information commissioned by a Justice of the Peace), because one was left on the desk; it was in the same format as the ones which had been disclosed to the Plaintiff in the pass for Information 07-02500/07-02559. The Plaintiff did not touch it but only glanced at it, since it was in his field of view right in-front of his person on Your-Worship desk, at the seat which he was instructed to sit in.

[611] The Plaintiff further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964), After yet another 30 minutes of waiting, Your Worship offered to see the Plaintiff, even-though he had not completed his task with the same Officer’s; The Plaintiff excepted Your Worship’s offer and entered intake office #2. After Your Worship review his subpoena to a witness documents for about 15 minutes in addition to Your Worship conferring with his co-workers, he advised the Plaintiff that his information within his SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS is correct, but questioned why the SUBPOENA was not done at the Brampton Court which issued the “Pre-Enquette” hearing for the information in question. Further more he gave the Plaintiff a FORM 16 to use and even though he used the FORM 16 in the C.C.C. So he refused to sign and issue his SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, and strongly inferred for him to have it done at the COURTHOUSE which signed the PRIVATE-INFORMATION and set the “Pre-Enquette” for May 7, 2012.

[612] The Plaintiff further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964), that pursuant to Your Worship’s advise he went back at Brampton intake Office to respectfully request that his SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS be signed, so he can present to the Courts the evidence demanded by Section 507.1 of the C.C.C. to make out a meritorious case against Mr. Stribbell(529), to enable the presiding Justice on May 7, 2012 at the Newmarket Courthouse to issue process for his Private Information.

[613] The Plaintiff further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964), there At about 10:50 on 11^th of April 2012, at the Brampton Courthouse, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, he signed up to see a Justice of the Peace for the issuing of a subpoena to a witness for a hearing to find process on May 7, 2012 pursuant to the advise or instruction of a NEWMARKET justice of the peace the day before; whom did not signed his SUBPOENA to summon witnesses to give evidence for a hearing to issue process for his information against Officer Stribbell(529).

[614] The Plaintiff further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964), After the Plaintiff had a long discussion with the Justice of the Peace concerning the use of documents authored by or signed by the individuals he was requesting to be summoned to give evidence for his Private Prosecution against Officer Stribbell(529)(Court File No.: 12-02964), in addition to the following:

(i) Officers Williams Hird(6058) and his Notes for 27, 28, and 29 of March 2007, for Occurrence 2007-70285; since the Plaintiff used Officer Stribbell’s(529) investigative document as a bases to file Information 07-02500; furthermore he assert’s in his notes that he Swore the same information on March 27, 2007 and March 28, 2007, which is a contradiction;

(ii) Officers Joe Willmets(974) and his Notes for 27, 28, and 29 of March 2007, and a Copy of Subpoena 06-239794, in addition to Officer’s Notes for 27, 28, and 29 of March 2007, for Occurrence 2007-70285; since Officer Joe Willmets(974) used Officer Stribbell’s(529) investigative document as a bases to file Information 07-02559; furthermore he assert’s in his notes that he Swore to two Information or “swore to both” on an unknown date, which is a contradiction. The Justice of the Peace also advised the Plaintiff that it was unusually for someone to be subpoena to swear an information, since the filing of the information is initiated by the Informant. He advised the Honorary Justice of the peace that subpoena is asserted in the Officer’s notes(Subpoena 06-239794);

(iii) Mr. Shawn Broughton(1079), and his Notes for 27, 28, and 29 of March 2007, for Occurrence 2007-70285; since he tasked Officer Stribbell’s(529) to investigative occurrence 2007-70285 and it is his file or brief which was used to file and swear Information 07-02500/07-02559 in addition the same Officer In Charge Initial Officer’s report being different than Officer Stribbell’s(529) SUMMERY OF GUILTY PLEA SYNOPSIS;

(iv) Ms. Cheryl Goodier to give evidence of her witnessing Officer Stribbell(529) perjury in open court while under cross examination on July 23, 2010.

[615] The Plaintiff further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964), The honourable Justice of the Peace asked for a reasonable amount of time to consider the matter. After leaving the same Justice Office, the Plaintiff was called back in the intake office at about 12:30 p.m.; the honourable Justice of the peace decline to sign the Plaintiff’s SUBPOENAS TO WITNESS to give evidence under oath for the issuance process, “because he was the gate keeper and he could not justify the expense; there were many good interim lawyers and the standards for subpoenaing a Prosecutor is very high and witness are subpoenaed only when it is necessary beside there are many good interim lawyers and there are transcripts available for purchased.” The Plaintiff informed him that because he was financial destitute he could not scale the financial barrier to obtain certified transcripts. According to R. v. Edge, 2004 ABPC 55, on page 10, PAR[46] AND para[45];

“[41] In R. v. Brown (1975), 28 C.C.C. (2d) 398 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) August P.C.J. reviewed the case law and concluded at p. 406:

“The following cases as I interpret them, say that it is mandatory for the Justice of the Peace to actually hear the allegations of the informant and if he thinks that it is necessary, his witnesses before he decides if a case has been made out: Murfina v. Sauve et al. (1901), 6 C.C.C. 275, 19 Que. S.C. 51 (Que. Sup. Ct.); Re Parke (1899), 3 C.C.C. 122, 30 O.R. 498 (Ont. H.C.J.); R. v. Smith (1909), 16 C.C.C. 425 (N.S.S.C.); Marsil v. Lanctot (1914), 25 C.C.C. 223, 28 D.L.R. 380, 20 Rev. Leg. 237 (Que. Sup. Ct.); White v. Dunning (1915), 24 C.C.C. 85, 21 D.L.R. 528, 8 Sask. L.R. 76 (Sask. S.C.).

{...}

[45] In R. v. Ingwer (1955), 113 C.C.C. 361 (Ont. H.C.), Chief Justice McRuer found that neither the laying of an information nor the issuing of process has the formalities of a trial for the potential accused. The justice has no right to decide not to issue a warrant or summons or take an information unless he has heard the witnesses that the informant desires to bring forward: Ingwer p. 366.”

[616] The Plaintiff further alleges that for matter (Court File No.: 12-02964), that Duty Councils are barred from “pre=enquette” and it is against their inherent duty to help Private Informants with”Private-Informations”. Section 507.1 demands that he show cause by giving evidence and presenting to the courts witnesses, yet he is denied a way of assuring the attendance of relevant witness, even-though this is necessary to show merits or that a prima-facie case is made out for the issuance of process. Furthermore, Section 507.1 in conjunction with Section 540. of the CRIMINAL CODE of CANADA demands that the evidence of witnesses be given under oath.

[617] The Plaintiff further alleges that on April 12, 2012 at about 14:45 hours, the Plaintiff was called into intake office # 1 to lay informations before His Worship Clark, against fringe elements in the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES. there was a Police Officer from the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES whom the Plaintiff reasonable believe and do believe was arm with a side revolver, present in the His Worship Justice Clark’s Court; the Plaintiff was not comfortable with this set up, so he boldly asked Your Worship what the said Officer was doing there. The Honourable Justice Clark advised the Plaintiff that if it is the case that a Justice of the piece request a Police Officers presence then one is provided. The presence of the Officer effected the trust dynamics and necessary confidence involved in the laying an information before a Justice of the piece; this diminished the Informant ability to speak freely and without fear of consequences or ramifications of what was being said or what was being over heard in a privilege discussion with a Honourable Justice of the piece concerning the merits of the said private prosecution. The unwarranted presence of the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, Police Officer whom the Plaintiff believed to be armed with a side revolver and memorandum notebook was intimidating and their is a concern for the said Officers involvement in what amount to criminal charges against his colleagues or fellow workers.

[618] The Plaintiff further alleges that on April 13, 2012 I was called into intake office # 1 to lay informations before His Worship Asad Malik, against fringe elements in the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES. Their was a Court Security Officer whom I reasonable believed to be armed, present standing at position at the inner door to the back connecting room rooms to the adjoining offices. Again The presence of the Officer effected the trust dynamics and necessary confidence involved in the laying an information before a Justice of the piece; this diminishing the Informant ability to speak freely and without fear of consequences or ramifications of what was being said or what was being over heard in a privilege discussion with a Honourable Justice of the piece concerning the merits of the said private prosecution. The unwarranted presence of the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, Police Officer whom the Plaintiff believed to be armed with a side revolver and memorandum notebook was intimidating and their is a concern for the said Officers involvement in what amount to criminal charges against his colleagues or fellow workers.

[619] The Plaintiff further alleges that on May 30, 2012 at about 3:00 p.m. at wicket 6(THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE-CRIMINAL), he asked the attending CLERK for a SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, qualified Clerk to commission his affidavit and accompanying EXHIBITS; she told him that “their was no SUPERIOR COURT OF JSTICE Clerk who is authorized to commission an affidavit. So the Plaintiff asked if he could see a Justice of the peace instead to commission his Affidavit of Evidence with accompanying EXHIBITS.

[620] The Plaintiff further alleges that on May 30 2012 he did not have to wait long before being called into the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE 2 by Your Worship Tina Rotondi Molinari. She had no arm guard or the appearance of an armed guard accompanying her. If there was a Police Officer or Security Guard present, he did not notice one. This is in contrast to the other two Justice of the peace who had readily observable guards or armed Police Officers present while the Plaintiff was trying to lay Private Information’s before the Honourable Justice Clark and Justice Malik Informations. Her Worship confirmed his identIty, place him under oath and proceeded to commissioning his Affidavit of evidence and accompanying EXHIBITS. The Federal Prosecution Service DESKBOOK articulates the following;

“POLICE DISCRETION:

11.2 Role of the Police: Authority to Investigate and Lay Charges

11.2.1 The Common Law Principle

Maintaining the independence of the police from direct political control is fundamental to our system of law enforcement. Under the common law, the police could not be directed by the Executive or by Parliament to start an investigation, much less lay charges. As one former Attorney General said, "No one can tell an officer to take an oath which violates his conscience and no one can tell an officer to refrain from taking an oath which he is satisfied reflects a true state of facts".² In R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex parte Blackburn,³ Lord Denning described the principle in this way:

I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as it is of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected; and that honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace. He must decide whether or not suspected persons are to be prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it is brought; but in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone.

(11.2.1, FEDERAL PROSECUTION SERVICE DESKBOOK, page 79)”

[621] The Plaintiff further alleges that on May 14 2012 the Honourable presiding Justice was Justice Howden who had something to do with the Plaintiff allege 2009 denial of NATURAL JUSTICE for his MOTION FOR DIRECTION(07-02559) at the NEWMARKET SUPERIOR COURT(appellate court). A Justice, cannot be a Judge in his own cause without violating the appearance of Judicial impartiality and independence. The Plaintiff reasonable and probable believe, and do believe that the Honourable Justice Howden denied him natural justice on June 01, 2009 in the very same courtroom or one next to it. Furthermore the motion was never heard by him is still outstanding.

[622] The Plaintiff further alleges that on May 14 2012 before he attended the hearing to be spoken to before the Honourable Justice Howden; he went to the scheduling Clerk to reserve a date for a future Motion; he was refuse a date and told all he had to do was choose a monday. The Plaintiff Informed the Scheduling Clerk that he needed about 2 hours reserved and in the Toronto Region Courts they require reservation for a long motion. The said Scheduling Clerk still refused. In the same courtroom for the Hearing before the Honourable Justice Howden; I over heard other matters which reserved future hearing dates other pending motions. But the Plaintiff was outrightly being denied the exact same equal services in contravention of Section 1. of the Human Right’s Act. The week before that on May 7, 2012 it took about an hour of arguing and waiting at the registrar to obtain the Court file Numbers for matters under Appeal by way of Section 507.1(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[623] The Plaintiff alleges that on May 14, 2012 he did not have enough money to take the bus home that day, so he walk the remaining 1/3 of the journey. He started to walk at 2:30 p.m. from HiWay 7 and HiWay 50 in Brampton; he reach home at the most westerly part of Mississauga at about 10:00 p.m.. This is ofcourse a physical and financial barrier to accessing justice. He assumed that the reason for his matter of private prosecution being sent to Newmarket by the Brampton Court intake Office was because of impartiality and fairness to the unrepresented Litigant. He only had negative $00.50 in his account that day.

[624] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 22^nd of June 2012, the honourable Justice Jeannie I. Anand issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which she signed and dated as July 22, 2012 for Officer Pekeski(2261) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on July 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Pekeski(2261) failed to appear when called to give evidence for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[625] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 22^nd of June 2012, the honourable Justice Jeannie I. Anand issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which she signed and dated as July 22, 2012 for Officer Bachoo(3180) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on July 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Bachoo(3180) failed to appear when called to give evidence for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[626] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 22^nd of June 2012, the honourable Justice Jeannie I. Anand issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which she signed and dated as July 22, 2012 for Officer Strauss(3604) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on July 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Strauss(3604) failed to appear when called to give evidence for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[627] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 22^nd of June 2012, the honourable Justice Jeannie I. Anand issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which she signed and dated as July 22, 2012 for Officer Seville(3547) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on July 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Seville(3547) failed to appear when called to give evidence for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[628] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 22^nd of June 2012, the honourable Justice Jeannie I. Anand issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which she signed and dated as July 22, 2012 for Officer Halfyard(3484) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on July 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Halfyard(3484) failed to appear when called to give evidence for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[629] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 22^nd of June 2012, the honourable Justice Jeannie I. Anand commissioned the Informant’s “AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE...,” which she signed and dated as June 22, 2012 for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[630] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 22^nd of June 2012, the honourable Justice Jeannie I. Anand commissioned the Informant’s “AFFIDAVIT OF INFORMANT(WAYNE FERRON),” which she signed and dated as June 22, 2012 for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[631] The Plaintiff alleges that, he cannot attest to which witness was present or absent even thought he believe about three witnesses was in attendance; however, the Crown Attorney X(The Registrar refuse to give his name), spoke to them before the hearing so he can confirm to who was in attendance, whom he advise of the adjournment of the matter from May 23, 2012 to June 22, 2012 for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[632] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 6^th of June 2012, the honourable Justice M. Hudson issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which he signed and dated as June 6, 2012 for Officer Pekeski(2261) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on July 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Pekeski(2261) failed to appear when called to give evidence for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[633] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 6^th of June 2012, the honourable Justice M. Hudson issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which he signed and dated as June 6, 2012 for Officer Bachoo(3180) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on July 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Bachoo(3180) failed to appear when called to give evidence for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[634] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 6^th of June 2012, the honourable Justice M. Hudson issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which he signed and dated as June 6, 2012 for Officer Strauss(3604) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on July 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Strauss(3604) failed to appear when called to give evidence for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[635] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 6^th of June 2012, the honourable Justice M. Hudson issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which he signed and dated as June 6, 2012 for Officer Seville(3547) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on July 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Seville(3547) failed to appear when called to give evidence for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[636] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 6^th of June 2012, the honourable Justice M. Hudson issued a SUBPOENA TO A WITNESS, which he signed and dated as June 6, 2012 for Officer Halfyard(3484) and the same Officer was subsequently subpoena to give evidence on July 4, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 206. Officer Halfyard(3484) failed to appear when called to give evidence for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[637] The Plaintiff alleges that, their was an inference of a lack of mens rea for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395.

[637] The Plaintiff alleges that, proof of mens rea is a matter for the trial court since it is a part of the requirement for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was indeed committed; the sufficiency of charge (Section 585) in the Plaintiff’s view does not place such a high require to show that a prima facie case is made out; besides indictments or counts can be amended(Section 601) to correspond to the evidence up until the arraignment.

[638] The Plaintiff alleges that, the he was approached on more than one occasion to consume psychotic medication without lawful or medical cause or even a proper psychiatric assessment.

[639] The Plaintiff alleges that, an application is itself(FORM 1.) an original legal instrument for a proposed judicial process; for he was imprisoned for 13 days and his rights and freedoms were taken away. Within the context of the Bill of Rights, is it legally possible to take away one’s Rights and Freedoms without a judicial proceeding of due process?

[640] The Plaintiff alleges that, for the Plaintiff’s legal matter(C5110) at the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO was irreparable damaged by false evidence , denial of natural justice, and the 14 days unlawful imprisonment at the BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, by obstructing his ability to perfect the leave to appeal and attendance on the date of the schedule appeal(September 7/8, 2011), even after the BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL and WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM was informed in formal written language, that they are damaging the Plaintiff’s person life and legal matters.

[641] The Plaintiff alleges that, a presiding justice is to hear and consider, ex parte the allegations of the informant and the evidence of the witnesses. The justice is bound by law to consider the evidence of the witnesses under oath for the issuance of process if the evidence of the informant is not enough. But all five witness fail to respond PRE-ENQUETTE(Court file No.: 12-4395) when called to give evidence despite being summoned to do so and being bound by a earlier court proceeding to do so. According to R. v. Edge, 2004 ABPC 55, on page 10, PAR[46];

“In the vast majority of cases, the justice should question the informant, the more so where the informant has only hearsay knowledge of the charge, to decide whether process should issue. Often an inquiry of a few minutes will suffice. In other cases, the inquiry must be more detailed. If the justice is not satisfied that the informant has a sufficient factual basis justifying the issuance of process, the justice must hear the evidence of other witnesses. In such case, it is ‘necessary to do so’ in accordance with s. 455.3(1)(a)(ii): R. v. Ingwer (1955), 113 C.C.C. 361 at pp. 365-6, [1956] O.R. 60, 22 C.R. 399 (Ont. H.C.J.), and R. v. Jean Talon Fashion Center Inc. (1975), 22 C.C.C. (2d) 223 at p. 228, 56 D.L.R. (3d) 296 (Que. Q.B.).”

[642] The Plaintiff further alleges that, alleges that their has been an infringement of Section 1(b) of THE BILL OF RIGHTS, which guards “the right of the individual to equality before the law and protection of the law.”

[643] The Plaintiff further alleges that, alleges that their has been an infringement of Section 15 of THE CHARTER, which guards EQUITY IN LAW.

[644] The Plaintiff alleges that, The Informant respectfully disagree with the notion of their being no difference between a long form charge or a short form charge within the context of Section 581(3) of the C.C.; all charges instigated against his person were in the long form. In the Plaintiff view a long form charge has a higher probability or reliability of finding process because it carries the necessary sufficient elements of a given charge for process to be issued. Some charges in the Criminal Code demands certain element be present in the written allegations; besides, he does not see public agents or professional informants using short form statements of allegation. According to R. v. Edge, 2004 ABPC 55, on page 10, PAR[46] AND para[45];

“[41] In R. v. Brown (1975), 28 C.C.C. (2d) 398 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) August P.C.J. reviewed the case law and concluded at p. 406:

{...}

[645] The Plaintiff alleges that, the following supports or at least points to the existence of MENS REA for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395:

(i) The Hospital refuse to disclose POLICE-REPORT which they used to justify the Plaintiff’s unlawful imprisonment;

(ii) Dr. Handler’s reasons for fraudulently procuring a FORM 1. to falsely imprison or hold the Plaintiff in custody, were “bold face lies” based on false evidence and constituted defamation of character ;

(iii) The PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES refuse to give full disclosure of occurrences and lied about receiving the relevant request;

(iv) The five police witness simultaneously and consistently failed to to appear before the adjourned pre-enquette and give evidence while being summoned on more than one occasion to do so and not being formally given leave of the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE. According to R. v. Vasarhelyi, 2011, on page 6&7, PAR[22] to para[25];

“The Decision at the Pre-enquete

[22] At the conclusion of the pre-enquete, the justice decided not to issue process. The nucleus of his reasons for refusal appears in this passage:

[23] peace to issue process on the information. A judge of the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application.

[24]At the outset of his reasons for judgment, the application judge began:

I am mindful that under the provisions of s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code the applicant must satisfy the justice of the peace that there is a prima facie case based upon the evidence of a witness or witnesses called on the pre-enquette hearing. The evidence called must be admissible at law.

The application judge then considered the evidence adduced in connection with

[25] each charge.

Now you have to understand, the nature of a pre-enquete hearing is to decide whether process should be issued, whether these charges can go forward, whether the Crown feels that they can prosecute. The very nature of their job is to prosecute. They want to prosecute. So when I hear from a Crown that, “Listen, I don’t think that,” my Crown’s opinion is that they don’t think there’s evidence here to prosecute, I have to pay very close attention to that. And I do.”

[646] The Plaintiff further alleges that for matter involving Court file No.: 12-4395, their has been an infringement of Section 2(e) of THE BILL OF RIGHTS, which guards ones “right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE for the determination of his rights and obligations.” According to Dowson v. R., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 144, on page 148&149, PAR[22] to para[25];

“Montgomery J. concluded that “All criminal proceedings are commenced by the laying of an information. Once proceedings are commenced, the Attorney General may intervene and conduct or stay proceedings.” He relied on The Department of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 116, The Crown Attorneys Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 101, the historical origins of the expression “finding an indictment” in 1886, R.S.C. 1886, c. 174, s. 2, paras. (c.) and (d.), and, amongst others, R. v. Leonard, ex parte Graham (1962), 133 C.C.C. 262, a decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta, and the fact that the Attorney General was the “chief law officer for the Crown and the duly constituted public authority charged with the responsibility for the administration of justice in the province.

{...}

(2) Under s. 732.1 the Attorney General has the power to stay proceedings any time after the laying of an information which charges a summary conviction offence. It would be anomalous to deny him this power with respect to indictable offences, especially since he is charged by statute with the ultimate responsibility for the conduct of prosecutions: see The Crown Attorneys Act, ss. 11 and 12.

(3) As Chief law officer of the Crown, the Attorney General has always had the power to control the issue of process in the name of the Crown. His decision is not reviewable by the courts.”

[647] The Plaintiff alleges that their has been a denial or a deprecation of the proper administration of the application of the Informant’s Rights or privilege under Section 504, 507, 581.(1), 583, 584, and 585. of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[648] The Plaintiff further alleges that their has been a denial or a deprecation of the proper administration of the application of the Plaintiff’s Rights under Section 15, of the Charter and Section 2.(e) under the BILLL OF RIGHTS

SYSTEMIC RACISM/RACIAL PROFILING

“INVESTIGATION

The framework of laws and rules that govern the administration of justice in cases involving an individual who has been accused of a crime, beginning with the initial investigation of the crime and concluding either with the unconditional release of the accused by virtue of acquittal (a judgment of not guilty) or by the imposition of a term of punishment pursuant to a conviction for the crime.

Introduction

Criminal procedures are safeguards against the indiscriminate application of criminal laws and the wanton treatment of suspected criminals. Specifically, they are designed to enforce the constitutional rights of criminal suspects and defendants, beginning with initial police contact and continuing through arrest, investigation, trial, sentencing, and appeals.”

(citation unknown)

[649] The MARTIN REPORT asserts as follows;

“To summarize, then, the Committee views the focus of its attention, the early stages of the criminal process, as of superordinate importance for a number of reasons.

First, these stages are an important part of the criminal law, which itself is deeply necessary to an organized and peaceful society.

Second, the criminal law is a social instrument to be used sparingly because it is costly, blunt, and potentially oppressive. Any concern that a social process be resorted to sparingly, inevitably focuses concern on the early stages where in the that process is invoked, and wherein it gathers momentum.

Third, the early stages of the criminal process have perhaps the broadest impact of any stage in that process.

And fourth, the early stages represent the entirety of the criminal process for very many of its lay participants. This in turn places a premium on the fairness, openness, accountability, and cost-effectiveness of the system in its early stages.”

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

BEFORE THE APPLICANT WAS DESCRIBED and IDENTIFIED:

[650] As long as the YORK REGIONAL POLICE force has defamatory statements or information in their ALPHA files or data bases which constitute bold face lies, that they willfully share with other institution and individuals whom have have access to the same false information; they are damaging the Plaintiff and his Children's life, liberty, security, and pursuit of happiness and it is actionable. The YRP insist on holding onto their false information and the Plaintiff insist on holding onto his innocence; for he is innocent.

[651] The Plaintiff alleges that, a reckless disregard for the truth has been demonstrated in materials before the court, the collective mind of the judicial system seem to turn a blind eye to the aforesaid. How else or within what context can the matter before the court be described, but systemic racism? How else!

[652] The Plaintiff alleges that on March 27, 2007, before is race, sex, age or physical profile was known there was no great concern concerning the Plaintiff’s intentions, motive, allege criminal intent or allege criminal actions. The Plaintiff was even given the benefit of the doubt, and maybe even presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with early dialogue and inference?

[653] The Plaintiff alleges that the following descriptions or inference was made about the Plaintiff before is race, sex, age or physical profile was known:

[654] The Plaintiff alleges that, Asper Mr. Fardy Summery of Witness Account on page 2, bullet 1. The complainant states;

“... I called 911 to report a suspicious driver. The time would have been 11:40 pm.”

(unsigned - Statement or Summary of Witness Account; page 2, bullet 1)

[655] The Plaintiff alleges that, Asper the 18^th of January 2008, page 12, line 24-27, Trial Hearing Transcript. The complaint states;

“I actually said to the dispatcher, you know what, I might have wasted your time. It looks like it’s a service person looking at maps or something, but I’ll pull over and wait. Actually, the dispatcher asked me to wait.”

(18^th of January 2008, page 12, line 24-27, Trial Hearing Transcript)

[656] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on page 2, bullet 3 of the SUMMARY OF WITNESS ACCOUNT, The complainant states;

“The vehicle pulled over to the side of Natanya immediately after turning onto the road with the correct indicator on. It is at this point that I said to the dispatcher that I might wasted your time, it looks like the van is looking for an address. I pulled off to the side of the road at Doon Cres. And continued to watch the van.”

(unsigned - Statement or Summary of Witness Account; page 2, bullet 3)

[657] The Plaintiff alleges that, Asper a dispatcher on page 3, at time 23:40 of the 911 dispatch log, states;

“COMP NOW BELIEVES DRIVER MAY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO READ A MAP OR SOMETHING ON WOODBINE”

(911 Dispatch Log; page 3, 07Mar27, time 23:40)

[658] The Plaintiff alleges that, Asper officer 5086 on the second page 1, at time 23:41 York Regional Police Officer Radio Log for position 587 states;

“HES LOST”

(York Regional Police Officer Radio Log for position 587; second page 1, officer 5086, 07Mar27, time 23:41)

[659] The Plaintiff alleges that, Asper officer 5086 on the second page 1, at time 23:41 York Regional Police Officer Radio Log for position 587. The officer states;

“SOUNDS LIKE HES LOST”

(York Regional Police Officer Radio Log for position 587; second page 1, officer 5086, 07Mar27, time 23:41)

[660] The Plaintiff alleges that, Asper officer 5086 on the second page 1, at time 23:41 York Regional Police Officer Radio Log for position 587. The officer states;

“THE GUY IS PROB JUST LOST BY THE SOUNDS OF IT”

(York Regional Police Officer Radio Log for position 587; second page 1, officer 1399, 07Mar27, time 23:41)

[661] The Plaintiff alleges that, Asper officer Monk (#1399) on the second page 1, at time 23:41 York Regional Police Officer Radio Log for position 587. The officer states;

“HES LOST”

(York Regional Police Officer Radio Log for position 587; second page 1, officer 5086, 07Mar27, time 23:41)

[662] The Plaintiff alleges that, it seem like the underlining though or the overriding theme in the different contributing opinions, is that the yet unknown and unidentified Plaintiff was more than likely, just lost. Even Officer Monk (the arresting Officer), concurred with the others that the Applicant was lost.

AFTER THE APPLICANT WAS DESCRIBED and IDENTIFIED:

[663] The Plaintiff alleges that, the Complainant was saying that the Plaintiff was a service person who was probable lost, but after he was identified he was now “up to no good”. It is the change in attitude, the change in priority of the 9-1-1 call, and the overbearing collective psychological force put into damaging, defaming, profiling, and convicting the Plaintiff at all cost; conviction without due process of law, conviction without procedural fairness, conviction based on criminal actions and acts of omission, and conviction without equity in law or the proper application of the rights and freedom given to each Canadian. The following citation under the sub heading AFTER THE APPLICANT WAS DESCRIBED... when compared to citation under the sub heading BEFORE THE APPLICANT WAS DESCRIBED..., should illustrate the aforementioned issues of systemic racism.

[664] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the complainant on page 3, at time 23:42 of the 911 Dispatch Log;

“DRIVER IN VAN IS A M/B”

[665] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Mr. Fardy Summery of Witness Account on page 2, bullet 1;

“...The driver was in my view and I describe him as a Black, Male in his 30’s, he was wearing glasses and looked clean cut.”

[666] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to complainant on page 3, line 21&22 of the Transcription of Recording of 911 call of Geoffrey Fardy;

“Yeah, just gone past me. I can tell you that it was a black male driver.”

[667] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to complaint on page 3, line 24&25 of the Transcription of Recording of 911 call of Geoffrey Fardy;

“And now he’s sped by. I guess he knows I’m following him. Sorry.”

[668] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the complaint on page 4, line 5-8 of the Transcription of Recording of 911 call of Geoffrey Fardy;

“Now he’s backing up out of the driveway. I would suspect that he knows I’ve been following him.”

[669] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Complainant on page 3, line 24&25 of the Transcription of Recording of 911 call of Geoffrey Fardy;

“And now he’s sped by. I guess he knows I’m following him. Sorry.”

[670] Philip H. Osborne, articulate in THE LAW OF TORTS;

“Harassment

There is no conventional or clear distinction between stalking and harassment and the terms are often used interchangeably. The dichotomy draw here is between harassing conduct that causes a person to fear for her safety (stalking) and harassing conduct that is seriously annoying, distressing, pestering, and vexatious (harassment).”

(Philip H. Osborne, THE LAW OF TORTS)

[671] The Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to the Complainant on page 4, line 5-8 of the Transcription of Recording of 911 call of Geoffrey Fardy;

“Now he’s backing up out of the driveway. I would suspect that he knows I’ve been following him.”

[672] According to section 264 of C.C.;

264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

[673] The Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to the Complainant on page 5, line 9-11 of the Transcription of Recording of 911 call of Geoffrey Fardy;

“I hate doing this, like, now he’s flashing his high beams at me.”

[674] According to section 29 and 35 of C.C.;

35.(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.

29. (1) It is the duty of every one who executes a process or warrant to have it with him, where it is feasible to do so, and to produce it when requested to do so.

(2) It is the duty of every one who arrests a person, whether with or without a warrant, to give notice to that person, where it is feasible to do so, of

(a) the process or warrant under which he makes the arrest; or

(b) the reason for the arrest.

(3) Failure to comply with subsection (1) or (2) does not of itself deprive a person who executes a process or warrant, or a person who makes an arrest, or those who assist them, of protection from criminal responsibility.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 29.

[675] The Plaintiff further alleges that, given the aforementioned allegations of the situation;

1. the capacity the complainant was acting in was in question;

2. the complainant’s motives, intentions, justification and objective reasons, were unknown and in question;

3. thus, the Plaintiff took actions which he believe to be at the time within his given state of mind and limited information;

4. took action that was none violent, that was necessary and sufficient for a reasonable person who is prudently guarding his families security, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

[676] The Plaintiff further alleges that, the Plaintiff’s highest priority is his children’s safety and security, he try not to expose them to strangers and dangers. The Plaintiff is of the opinion that his actions is the actions of a a reasonable prudent person trying to protect his four beloved baby girls and wife. So, he did his duty as a father and husband.

[677] According to R v. Beatty;

“[34] ...’The law does not lightly brand a person as a criminal.’ {...}

If every departure from the civil norm is to be criminalized, regard-

less of the degree, we risk casting the net too widely and branding as

criminals persons who are in reality not morally blameworthy. Such

an approach risks violating the principle of fundamental justice that

the morally innocent not be deprived of liberty.

[35] In a civil setting, it does not matter how far the driver fell short of the

standard of reasonable care required by law. The extent of the driver’s

liability depends not on the degree of negligence, but on the amount of

damage done. Also, the mental state (or lack thereof) of the tortfeasor is

immaterial, except in respect of punitive damages.

In a criminal setting, the driver’s mental state does matter because

the punishment of an innocent person is contrary to fundamental

principles of criminal justice...”

(R. v. Beatty, 2008 SCC 5, page 25- 26)

[678] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the Complainant on page 5, line 9-11 of t the Transcription of Recording of 911 call of Geoffrey Fardy;

“Are you lost? Do you need help? No he’s - he’s up to no good. Sorry, I hate to say that, but he just drove away on me.”

[679] According to the Charter of Rights and Freedom;

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

[680] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Officer Monk (#1399) on the 1^st page 1, at time 23:41 York Regional Police Officer Radio Log for position 587;

“...I’LL TAKE THE IMPAIRED THEN GO BACK ON LUNCH... HOPEFULLY”

[681] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Officer Monk (#1399) on the 1^st page 1, at time 00:26 York Regional Police Officer Radio Log for position 587;

“SO MUCH FOR LUNCH EH”

[682] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Officer Monk (#1399) just after the arrest, on the 1^st page 1, at time 00:27 York Regional Police Officer Radio Log for position 587. The officer states;

“OH HE,S LOST ALL RIGHT....JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY”

[683] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Officer Monk’s (#1399) notes; page 110, line 25-28;

“ I overheard Detective Constable Bird ask Mr. Ferron what he was doing in that area tonight. At that point the response was given by Mr. Ferron that he felt threatened, that he - he wouldn’t elabourate on that and from there on continued to stare straight ahead”

[684] According to the Criminal Code of Canada;

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[685] The Plaintiff alleges that, On 27^th of March 2007 at 23:51 hours. The Appellant complied with a traffic stop by an unmarked police vehicle (D303), East of Deer Park/Metro Rd in the Town of Georgina by two officers who were not in uniform capacity, DC Burd and DCst Broughton .

[686] The Plaintiff alleges that, DCst S. Broughton (#1079) with 10 years experience in law enforcement of 3-CIB, is the officer-in-charge and DC D. Burd’s partner. DCst Broughton was the driver of D303 (cruiser 303) while DC Burd occupied the front passenger seat. DCst Broughton, the declared officer-in-charge who gave false return on the process concerning the orientation and position of the plaintiff’s transportation after arrest; The said Officer suspended the rights of the Applicant. This is the Officer which provided assistance to the prosecutor; the Officer who sat alongside the Crown’s counscil and silently participated in the trial process. DCst Broughton also crossed out the word alcohol in his notes.

[687] The Plaintiff alleges that, that DC D. Burd’s (#1075) with 9 years experience of 3D; was the first Officer who made first contact with the Plaintiff and DCst Broughton was his partner. He occupied the passenger seat of D303. This is the officer which testified under oath in a court of law that Officer Monk lifted the plaintiff out of his vehicle; which is physically impossible. This is the Officer who improperly used OC-spray even-though he’s deficient in his Health and Safety knowledge, and ill trained in it safe use and application. This is the Officer who has confirmed he is tainted by racism or racial profiling, when he endeavor to call the plaintiff a “CRACK-HEAD” and “ASSHOLE” at first instance of contact and without any personal observation of contravention of the HIWAY TRAFFIC ACT or contravention of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

[688] According to the Quebec CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM;

Right to life.

1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom.

Safeguard of dignity.

4. Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation.

1975, c. 6, s. 4.

Respect for private life.

5. Every person has a right to respect for his private life.

1975, c. 6, s. 5.

Discrimination forbidden.

10. Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.

Discrimination defined.

Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.

1975, c. 6, s. 10; 1977, c. 6, s. 1; 1978, c. 7, s. 112; 1980, c. 11, s. 34; 1982, c. 61, s. 3.

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

[689] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Officer Broughton;

“At approximately 00:13 hrs officers formed reasonable grounds that the Accused Mr. Wayne FERRON was impaired by drugs. He was asked to step out of the vehicle and he refused. Officers removed the accused and noticed that he was holding papers and a cell phone in his hand. The accused was passively resisting but when attempted to handcuff the male he became combative. The officers attempted to use distractive methods and the male became enraged. The officers noticed the incredible strength of the male and that he was not responding to distractive strikes.”

(DCst S. Broughton(1079), NARRATIVE: INITIAL OFFICER REPORT, IMPAIRED, 2007-March-28)

[690] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Officer Broughton;

“Q. Okay. Did you see - did you see the

defendant trying to resist arrest?

A. What I saw is you getting out of the vehicle

with the officers there ...

Q. Urn hmm.

A. . ..and I saw the - the officers have to

forcibly put you against the van and then it - it looked like you

were resisting. With that many officers there, there looked like

there was a struggle ensuing and that's when the officers

grounded you.

{...}

Q. Okay. When did the arrest start then?

A. I don't have a time, sir.

Q. No, I don't - I don't mean in time - in terms

of time, I can give you the time. It was....

A. When officers were taking you out of the vehicle, the resistance started at that time.

Q. SO you saw the officers take me out of the vehicle?

A. You were getting out o the vehicle. I don’t know if they had their hands on you or not. I couldn’t see that far, but when they got you out of the vehicle, the actions...

Q. Okay, what I....

A. . ..the actions of the other officers, it

appeared that you were resisting. They pushed you up against the

Van.

{...}

Q. What I ....

A. . ..officers grounded you.

Q. What I want to know is did you see the

officers take me out of the van or did you see me get out of the van?

A. There was a number of officers there. It was all one action.

Q. So you don't know?

A. It was all one action.

Q. So you - you’re not sure? You don’t know? You didn’t see?

A. I saw all the actions of you getting out of

the vehicle and the officers attempting to take control. It's

all one action.

Q. Okay. So I got out of the van. What did I do?

A. The actions that I saw is that the officers

were attempting to take control of you. You were pushed against

the van and then the resistance continued and that's when the

officers attempted to ground you.

Q. Okay. So they pushed me against the van.

Okay. When I was against the van where were - where were my

hands?

A. I can’t tell you. I don’t know.

Q. You don’t know where my hands were. Okay. Which direction was I facing?

A. Facing into the van. Facing to the right

side of the road and if west is straight ahead then you would

been facing, I believe, north. “

(DCst S. Broughton(1079), January 18, 2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, page 52-54)

[691] The Plaintiff alleges that(07-02559), pursuant to Officer Broughton (1079) in the January 18^th, 2008 Trial Hearing Transcript, on page 57, line 15-22;

“I didn’t use the spray so it wasn’t a consideration for me.”

[692] Asper January 18, 2008, Trial Transcript on page 42, line 4-12. Officer Broughton states during Ms. Goodier’s examination in chief;

“A. I don’t know who pepper-sprayed him, but somebody did use the O.C. spray and that’s when he stopped resisting at that point in time to allow us to get him cuffed up and then he became totally non-compliant, totally passively resistive. We had to pick him up and physically put him in the back of the police car.

Q. So when you say passively resistive, does that mean he....

A. That means he just goes totally limp .”

(DCst Broughton (1079), January 18, 2008, Trial Transcript, on page 42, line 4-12

[693] The Plaintiff alleges that, Asper DCst Broughton (1079), TYPED OFFICER’S NOTES on page 28, para 3 & para 4, from his memorandum notebook. The Officer-in-charge states;

“I grabbed onto left arm for control - male incredibly strong - could not bring arm around to is back. Male was not yelling, calling out, screaming, just grunting / growling.

Officers calling out, telling male to stop resisting. Male was pushing back against officers - lifting himself and officers off the ground. PC Burd then applied OC spray to the suspect’s face .”

(DCst Broughton (1079), TYPED OFFICER’S NOTES on page 28, para 3 & para 4)

[694] According to the Province of Quebec Preamble R.S.Q., chapter C-12 Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms asserts;

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

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

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

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

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

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

[695] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the Typed OFFICER’S NOTES, at about 12:45 PM on 28^th of March 2007, by Staff Sergeant Bruce Ringler (193);

“He was --- at scene but not talking.

They suspect impaired by drugs

- cocaine or crack cocaine.

Struggle at scene, non - cooperative.

Cuffed & put into cell 3DM5.

--- pulled shirt over his face.”

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

[696] According to David Tanvich in THE COLOUR OF JUSTICE;

“...police officers who use racialized stereotypes consciously or unconsciously on a daily basis. Overt racism, the intent to treat individuals differently based on a belief in the superiority of one’s own racial group, has been largely overshadowed in Canada by a more subtle and yet equally pervasive form of racism known as systemic racism.³⁹ Systemic racism is the “social production of racial inequality in decisions about people and the treatment they receive.”⁴⁰ It occurs through a process called racialization:...”

(The Colour of Justice, David M. Tanovich, page 13-14)

[697] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Officer Monk (#1399), July 23, 2008 Trial Continuation Transcript on page 77, line 2-33;

“...Yourself, yes. One of the comments in the - in the call history I believe was that the - the complainant believed that you possible might be lost. I responded based on everything I had read in the call at that point that may be lost in a unique way based on the - the way you had been driving. It didn’t indicate to me that you were lost at all, that you were just trying to get away.”

(July 23, 2008 Trial Continuation Transcript on page 77, line 2-33)

[698] The Applicant alleges that, the Plaintiff was profile as violent, to be a crack cocaine user, and to be alien to the Georgian community after his physical description of a BLACK MALE IN HIS 30s?

[699] The Applicant alleges that, Asper Typed Officers Notes, page 22, at 00:24. Officer Williamson states;

“male carried into cell block - when tried to give up watch - male’s belt and watch taken and carried - male still not talking and continues to cover his eyes ... re-attended the cell block with S/sgt. Ringler, male is shaking in cell with shirt over his face.”

(Typed Officers Notes, page 22, at 00:24. Or Officer Williamson (#1108) Notes, page 190, at 00:24.)

[700] According to Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission);

“In Andrews, supra, a case which challenged the citizenship requirement

for entry into the legal profession in British Columbia, this Court had occasion to

address the meaning of the term "discrimination" as employed in s. 15(1). McIntyre J. (dissenting, but on this issue stating the opinion of the Court) stated, at pp. 174-75,

that:

. . . discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities. . .

Distinctions based on personal characteristics attributed to an individual solely on the basis of association with a group will rarely escape the charge of discrimination, while those based on an individual's merits and capacities will rarely be so classed.

(Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission), [1991]

2 S.C.R. 22 , page 24 and 25)

[701] The Applicant alleges that, Asper Typed Officers Notes, page 30, at 00:24, line 13-19. Officer Broughton states;

“male continued to be uncooperative male carried into cell advised PC Brown read Rights to Counsel/Caution and was unresponsive - one in cells male began taking clothes off and acting irrationally and was moved to bullpen. Opportunity for lawyer/D.C. suspended until male no longer under influence - re his personal safety.”

(Typed Officers Notes, page 30, at 00:24, line 13-19. Or Officer Broughton (#1079) Notes, page 84)

[702] According to the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA;

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

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

(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

[703] The Applicant alleges that, the OFFICER IN CHARGE(DCst Broughton(1079)), falsely assert “impaired operation/over 80 mgs” in Invoice (07-3542); without the application of a Breathalyzer Test and the same impaired status being determined solely on subjective bases of allege “Post Offence Conduct Evidence” byway of unqualified Officers, therein causing the same false assertion to be placed in the YORK REGIONAL POLICE Alpha File or data base, to be made available to the Federal Government of Canada and quite possible INTERPOL(“ Federal law enforcement services ” or “ Foreign criminal investigators ”), in contravention of 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.

[704] The Applicant alleges that the Officer Task to Investigate(DC Stribbell(529)), falsely assert “impaired operation/over 80 mgs” in Invoice (07-3542) for the main charge against the Plaintiff; without the application of a Breathalyzer Test or the arresting officer being a “qualified field sobriety test officer” and the same impaired status being determined solely on subjective bases of allege “Post Offence Conduct Evidence” byway of unqualified Officers, therein causing the same false assertion to be placed in the YORK REGIONAL POLICE Alpha File or data base, to be made available to the Federal Government of Canada and quite possible INTERPOL(“ Federal law enforcement services ” or “ Foreign criminal investigators ”), in contravention of 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.

[705] The Plaintiff alleges that the Officer-In-Charge(DCst Broughton(1079)), falsely assert that the Plaintiff consumed drugs in Invoice (07-3542); without the application of a Drugs Recognition Expert Test(DRE Test), and the same impaired status being determined solely on subjective bases of allege “Post Offence Conduct Evidence”, without an objective determination of the type of drugs used by the Applicant, given that the York Regional Police Services publicly claims to be leaders in the Drug Recognition Expert(DRE) Program. Furthermore, he enabled unqualified Officers false determination of of drug use, to be placed in the YORK REGIONAL POLICE Alpha File or data base, to be made available to the Federal Government of Canada and quite possible INTERPOL(“ Federal law enforcement services ” or “ Foreign criminal investigators ”), in contravention of 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.

[706] The Plaintiff alleges that the Officer Task to Investigate(DC Stribbell(529)), falsely assert that the Plaintiff consumed drugs in Invoice (07-3542); without the application of a Drugs Recognition Expert Test(DRE Test), and the same impaired status being determined solely on subjective bases of allege “Post Offence Conduct Evidence”, without an objective determination of the type of drugs used by the Applicant, given that the York Regional Police Services publicly claims to be leaders in the Drug Recognition Expert(DRE) Program. Furthermore, he enabled unqualified Officers false determination of of drug use, to be placed in the YORK REGIONAL POLICE Alpha File or data base, to be made available to the Federal Government of Canada and quite possible INTERPOL(“ Federal law enforcement services ” or “ Foreign criminal investigators ”), in contravention of 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.

[707] The Plaintiff alleges that the Officer-In-Charge(DCst Broughton(1079)), falsely asserts that the Plaintiff was taking off his close and acting irrational. The same Officer articulated the aforesaid in the following manner;

“ one in cells male began taking clothes off and acting irrationally,”

in his memorandum note book at about 00:24 on the 28^th of March 2007, in the face of evidence to the contrary in the booking video evidence and his fellow Officers assertions, 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.

[708] The Plaintiff alleges that the Officer-In-Charge(DCst Broughton(1079)), suspended the Legal Rights of the Plaintiff without lawful excuse or reasonable cause, in contravention of the Charter, Police Policy, and his inherent duty owed to the public while in the employment of Her-Majesty the Queen as a Peace Officer. Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, not to cause foreseeable damage to the Applicant’s life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.

[709] The Plaintiff alleges that the Officer-In-Charge(DCst Broughton(1079)), assert in his INITIAL OFFICER REPORT IMPAIRED, on the 28^th of March 2007 at 00:55 in Invoice(07-3542); that “at approximately 00:13 hrs officer 1399 formed reasonable grounds that the Accused Mr Wayne FERRON was impaired by drugs” in contradiction to DC Stribbell’s Gregory’s(#529)(the Officer task to investigate 07-3542), PROSECUTION SUMMARY-GUILTY PLEA SYNOPSIS, WAYNE FERRON, in the same invoice. 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.

[710] The Plaintiff alleges that the Officer-Task-To-Investigate GO# 2007-70285(DC Stribbell’s Gregory’s(#529)), asserts in his PROSECUTION SUMMARY-GUILTY PLEA SYNOPSIS, WAYNE FERRON, on the 28^th of Mar. 2007 at 06:54 in Invoice(07-3542); that “ at 013 hours officers formed the opinion that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by drugs” in contradiction to DCst Broughton(1079) INITIAL OFFICER REPORT IMPAIRED, in the same invoice. 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.

[711] The Plaintiff alleges that the Officer-Task-To-Investigate GO# 2007-70285(DC Stribbell’s Gregory’s(#529)), falsely assert in his SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT, on the 28^th of March 2007 at or about 06:54 in Invoice(07-3542), that the Plaintiff was assaultive towards officers. The same Officer articulated the aforesaid in the following manner;

“when officers went to handcuff him the accused became assaultive towards the officers.”

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.

[712] The Plaintiff alleges that the Officer-Task-To-Investigate GO# 2007-70285(DC Stribbell’s Gregory’s(#529)), falsely assert byway of slander/libel in his PROSECUTION SUMMARY-GUILTY PLEA SYNOPSIS, WAYNE FERRON, on the 28^th of March 2007 on page 1, comment box 1, in Invoice(07-3542), that;

“...In the past however he has used drugs.”

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.

[713] The Plaintiff alleges that the Officer-Task-To-Investigate GO# 2007-70285(DC Stribbell’s Gregory’s(#529)), falsely asserts byway of slander/libel in his memorandum notebook, on the 28^th of March 2007 at about 6:20 a.m., that the Plaintiff used drugs(crack) in the past when he made the following statement;

“Staff Sergeant Ringler called her last night and she advised that he does not do drugs or drink, has used crack in the past, but not for a long time”

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.

[714] The Plaintiff alleges that the Officer-Task-To-Investigate GO# 2007-70285(DC Stribbell’s Gregory’s(#529)), falsely asserts byway of perjury and slander/libel, while advising the Courts and distributing legal documents, that the Plaintiff’s wife told the same Officer personally, about the Applicant’s past drug use; the said Officer articulated the aforesaid on more than one occasion, in open court, and while under oath in the following manner;

“... You have used crack cocaine in the past...”

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.

[715] The Plaintiff allege that the Complainant(Geoffrey Fardy), falsely asserted that the Plaintiff was “ up to no good,” in the Applicant’s own 98% caucasian neighborhood, after identifying the Plaintiff as a “Black male in his thirties..” in his conversation with the 911 dispatch.

[716] Furthermore, Geoffrey Fardy on or about March 27, 2007 community of Georgian, in the Regional Municipality of York; did actively beset and watch the Plaintiff’s dwelling while his wife and four young beloved baby girls reside inside in contravention of Section 26. subsection(2) clause(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada;

[717] Furthermore, Geoffrey Fardy did repeatedly follow the Applicant from place to place in contravention of Section 26. subsection(2) clause(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada; Geoffrey Fardy undisclosed actions did cause the Plaintiff to fear for the well being of his precious beloved children in contravention of Section 26. subsection(2) clause(d) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[718] The Plaintiff alleges that DC Burd(1075), willfully applied racial prejudgement without material or objective evidence, by calling the accused “crack head” and “asshole” without lawful cause, upon first instant of contact, in contravention of the Plaintiff’s Charter Rights , the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, and without the application of presumption of innocence, or a reasonable prudent investigation, and while the Plaintiff was in compliance with legal requirements of the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT and 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.

[719] The Plaintiff alleges that, DC Burd(1075) asserts, that Officer Monk removed the Plaintiff from his vehicle by lifting him out when he refused to leave the same vehicle while being instructed to do so by the arresting Officer in contravention of Section 136 subsection(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada; the aforesaid is articulated in the same Officer’s notes and corroborated by Officer Burd’s given testimony under oath in in open court in the following manner;

“Uniformed officers advised the male he would be under arrest and asked him to step out of the vehicle. The male refused. P.C. Monk unlocked the door of the van & lifted the male out.”

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.

[720] Pursuant to the Quebec Charter of Human Rights;

Right to life.

1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom.

Safeguard of dignity.

4. Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation.

1975, c. 6, s. 4.

Respect for private life.

5. Every person has a right to respect for his private life.

1975, c. 6, s. 5.

Discrimination forbidden.

Discrimination defined.

Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.

1975, c. 6, s. 10; 1977, c. 6, s. 1; 1978, c. 7, s. 112; 1980, c. 11, s. 34; 1982, c. 61, s. 3.

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

[721] Pursuant to Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada;

“In Andrews, supra, a case which challenged the citizenship requirement

for entry into the legal profession in British Columbia, this Court had occasion to

address the meaning of the term "discrimination" as employed in s. 15(1). McIntyre J. (dissenting, but on this issue stating the opinion of the Court) stated, at pp. 174-75,

that:

Distinctions based on personal characteristics attributed to an individual solely on the basis of association with a group will rarely escape the charge of discrimination, while those based on an individual's merits and capacities will rarely be so classed.

(Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission), [1991]

2 S.C.R. 22 , page 24 and 25)

[722] Pursuant to the MARTIN REPORT;

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

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

[723] Pursuant to the MARTIN REPORT;

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

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

[724] Pursuant to the MARTIN REPORT;

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

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

[725] The Plaintiff alleges that their has been a wanton disregard for the truth of matter 07-02559 and a willful acceptance or a willful blindness towards negligent activity, a perforation of irregularities and a silent blessing of criminal activities; pursuant to Mr. Costain;

“Turning to the charge of resisting the officers, considering all the evidence the Appellant was properly convicted. While the evidence of the officers varied in some details, on the whole it showed the Appellant to be actively resisting a lawful arrest. His passivity came later-his active resistance at the time of the arrest was not something of which the Appellant had a recollection.

In general, the trial judge properly rejected the Appellant’s evidence outright, having regards to the Appellant’s lack of credible explanation for his lack of memory on various points, and finding that the appellant’s perception and judgement on the evening in question were completely unreliable. As such, the test in R. v. W.(D.) was satisfied-no reasonable doubt was found.

R. V. W.(D), supra

There is no air of reality to the various allegations of Charter Breaches by the police

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

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

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

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

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

There is no air of reality to the various allegations of Crown misconduct or Charter breaches

There appear to be an issue with the Crown not withdrawing an impaired driving by drug count until the day of trial. The trial did not however proceed on that count, and there was no prejudice to the Appellant also appears to allege a defective information. However no defects are apparent: He also alleges he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the officer who swore the information. Such a cross-examine the officer who swore to the information. Such a cross-examination would not appear to have any relevance or meaning.

”

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

[726] The Plaintiff alleges that their has been a wanton disregard for the truth of matter 07-02559 and a willful acceptance or a willful blindness towards negligent activity, a perforation of irregularities and a silent blessing of criminal activities; pursuant to Mr. Tait;

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

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

CONTINUED SYSTEMIC RACISM/RACIAL PROFILING:

[727] The Plaintiff alleges that the probation Officer rejected the Applicant’s request on many occasions for articulated reasons and justification for drugs/alcohol test and assessments.

[728] The Plaintiff further alleges that, the court rejected the Applicant’s request in his MOTION(07-02559) to obtain articulated reasons and justification for drugs/alcohol test and assessments and the Human Rights Organization rejected his complaint concerning the test.

[729] The Plaintiff further alleges that, the Applicant felt he had no alternative but to preserve and protect is humanity and human dignity from what he surmised was arbitrary subjective drugs/alcohol test and assessment for the purpose of self incrimination mining; for the purposes of obtaining or manufacturing subjective Drugs/Alcohol abuse evidence and subjective Psychological evidence; to prove a CRACK COCANE THEORY based on systemic racism or to reinstate the withdrawn Drug charge or to revive information No.: 02500 which was deemed to be discarded or dissolved by the Crown’s Prosecution on many occasions.

[730] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Ms. Joanne stuart(Crown Counsel);

“(ii) March 30, 2007

The Information does not indicate that the impaired driving charge was withdrawn on this date. Rather it notes that the impaired driving charge was formally withdrawn by the trial Crown on January 18, 2010. The transcript of January 18, 2010 also confirms this. Regardless of what date the Crown requested that this charge be withdrawn, it is officially noted as withdrawn and no one can or will now proceed against you on that particular charge.”

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

[731] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Ms. Joanne stuart(Crown Counsel) concerning further disclosure;

“(1) Videotape of the Courthouse Cells;

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

2007; and

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

about getting a drug test

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

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

[732] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Ms. Joanne Stuart concerning further disclosure;

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

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

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

BSW to perform the subjective Drugs/Alcohol assessment

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

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

[733] The Plaintiff alleges that, Asper the T. A. Patterson and Associates Incorporated website there is a

“GRIP Alcohol and Drugs Awareness Program.“

[734] The Plaintiff alleges that, the description for the aforementioned program boldly declares;

“GRIP provides a six session alcohol/drug education group for 18+ years who are currently serving a term of probation or parole. The group is designed to provide the participants with information regarding the effects of alcohol and drugs; biologically, socially, emotionally and otherwise. Participant are encouraged to examine their substance use past and present and to make positive changes to their lives which support their goals. This program is 100% funded by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.”

[735] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Marguerite Campbell;

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

Wayne stated that he never use d drugs.

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

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

[736] The Plaintiff alleges that, on 23^th of March 2009 at 10:30 AM at 2301 Haines Road, Suite 200 Mississauga, ON, Tel: 905-279-7600. The Applicant had a meeting with Probation an Parole Officer, Mrs Angela Pasquale. She informed him that on the 15^th of April 2009 at 2:15 PM, he will be having a subjective drug and alcohol test. At are close to the said date, Mrs Angela Pasquale informed him that he will be seeing there in house psychiatrist for evaluation and assessment.

[737] The Plaintiff alleges that, he advised Mrs. Angela Pasquale concerning proper notice of intention by stating;

“I am requesting or I require articulated reasons and justification in written form,”

for the aforementioned tests and evaluations. She replied by saying;

“I am not going to give you that! “

[738] The Plaintiff alleges that, he informed her that he would have to file a motion in court against the said actions and further inquired about the reasons for the test. She replied by asserting to him that he could file a motion if he have a lot of money, and then boldly asserting;

“ there was drugs and alcohol involved!”

[739] The Plaintiff alleges that, he interpreted the above statement by the Probation Officer as meaning, “drugs and alcohol was involved” in or it was an element of GO 07-70285.

[740] The Plaintiff alleges that, the aforementioned action prompted the Applicant to file an Application against the Crown; to get well articulated reasons and justification for the aforementioned tests and evaluations; to determined how the said tests and evaluations can be conducted through a scientific unbiased method and consistent with fairness and equity; so guaranteed by our beloved Charter of Rights and Freedom.

[741] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 1^st of April 2009. The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, sent the Applicant a letter. Mrs. Angela Pasquale declares in her letter as follows;

“Please be advised that an appointment has been scheduled for you to see that the staff psychiatrist, Dr. Srinavasan,

on Monday April 20, 2009 at 2:00 p.m.

Your TA Patterson appointment is the week prior, on April 15, 2009 at 2:15 p.m. Please ensure that you keep both appointments as fulfillment of your probation order.”

[742] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 6^th of April 2009 there was a commencement of the application the Applicant filed earlier; requesting articulated reasons and justification for drugs/alcohol subjective test and psychological evaluation; to determined how these test and evaluations can be conducted through a scientific unbiased method and consistent with fairness and equity, which is insured by the fundamental rule of justice. Even though he was appealing to Human worth and Human decency on the legal basis of the Fundamental Rule of Justice; the application was squashed for jurisdictional error and wrong format, but the Plaintiff now know that the Presiding Honourable Justice actually had inherent jurisdiction to make a determination on the said request.

[743] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the PROBATION ORDER(FILE# 07-02559);

“NOW THEREFORE, the said offender shall for the period of 12 months from the date of this order...;”

it was signed by J. F. Kenkel and dated on September 26, 2008.

[744] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the honourable Justice Kenkel’s REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT;

THE COURT: I meant - I meant the dangerous. If I said impaired it’s - I misspoke. with respect to the resist arrest I’m going to suspend the passing of sentence and place you on probation for a period of 12 months...”

(Justice Kenkel, REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT/SENTENCING, September 26, 2008)

[745] The Plaintiff alleges that, the probation period ends on September 26, 2009. So it is reasonable to infer that the jurisdiction given to Probation and Parole over the Plaintiff did not exceed the probationary period.

[746] The Plaintiff alleges that, at the first meeting on Thursday October 23^th, 2008 @ 8:30 a.m. while the with his Probation Officer Angela Pasquale was asking him some general question about family. However, it should be noted that the same probation officer asked the Applicant if he was allergic to any medication.

[747] The Plaintiff alleges that, he reminded his Probation Officer Angela Pasquale that she is a person in authority and whatever he said to her can be use in a Court of law against him in evidence. He told her she should caution him before she start to ask him a series of question. She was very upset at his suggestion. So He reassured her by telling her he don’t mind answering her questions. However; she should caution him about self incrimination. After answering her general questions about family, employment and education, he proceeded to tell her his side of the story concerning this matter. She show absolutely no interest.

[748] The Plaintiff alleges that, the Probation Officer was only interested in knowing if he was abusing drugs or alcohol and if he was sexually or physically abused. He informed her, that he would prefer a material drug test that produce results that is useful to him. She informed him that there was no equipment at that facility which permitted such test.

[749] The Plaintiff alleges that, he filed a Notice of Appeal on 23^rd of October 2008.

[750] The Plaintiff alleges that, the date of Appeal Hearing was 5^th of October, 2009 to the 14^th of October, 2009.

[751] The Plaintiff alleges that, the Summary Conviction Appellate Court Justice, was Her Worship, Madam Justice S. Healey.

[752] The Plaintiff alleges that, the Honourable Madam Justice S. Healey Ruling byway of paper review matter 07-02559 on 15^th of October, 2009.

[753] The Plaintiff alleges that, he received Madam Justice S. Healey paper review Ruling byway of regular mail on the 23^rd of October 2009, Madam Justice S. Healey, dismisses the appeal in it entirety.

[754] The Plaintiff alleges that, on 2^nd of November 2009, the Applicant filed a NOTICE OF APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[755] The Plaintiff alleges that, MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICE, made and APPLICATION FOR DEMANDE, Requesting certified information for enforcement after the probation term had expired, dated October 5, 2009.

[756] The Plaintiff alleges that, MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICE, effected an OFFENDER ALERT(OTIS# 1000768102 ), for the Plaintiff have a possible mental disease, dated October 21, 2009 and states as follows;

“SPECIFIC OFFENDER CONCERNS: Mental Health Concerns

Date of Submission: October 21, 2009

Supervision Start Date: September 26, 2008

Supervision End Date: September 25, 2009”

[757] The Plaintiff alleges that, the Probation and Parole Officer(Angela Pasquale) is submitting the OFFENDER ALERT for a undisclosed mental disease after the probation period had been successfully completed and had expired on September 25, 2009.

[758] The Plaintiff alleges that, PROBATION AND PAROLE SERVICES, filed INFORMATION 014407 for failure or refusal to comply with Probation order(S. 733.1(1)), dated October 26, 2009. If successful, they were asking for 15 days custody of the Plaintiff.

[759] The Plaintiff alleges that, PROBATION AND PAROLE SERVICES, served on the Plaintiff a SUMMONS TO A PERSON CHARGE WITH AN OFFENCE (fail or refuse to comply with Probation order...S. 733.1(1)), dated October 26, 2009:

[760] The Plaintiff alleges that, PROBATION AND PAROLE SERVICES, ordered the ORDER ON DISMISSAL OF APPEAL (4911-998-07-02559), dated October 28, 2009 and was received by Angela Pasquale on November 6, 2009.

[761] The Plaintiff alleges that, PROBATION AND PAROLE SERVICES and the Crown’s CHARGE SCREENING FORM IN THE MATTER OF Occurrence No. 09-198646, the Crown ask for 15 days custody, dated December 21, 2009:

[762] The Plaintiff alleges that, PROBATION AND PAROLE SERVICES, refused to disclose their copy of the the honourable Justice Healey’s Ruling (07-02559) which they obtained from the Newmarket courthouse. This is a very important link between the mens rea of Angela Pasquale and the Applicant’s Appeal (07-02559) at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (central east region), however it was not disclosed to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, all the aforesaid was being effected after the probation period was expired and completed without incident.

[763] The Plaintiff alleges that, Probation and Parole Officer ( Angela Pasquale) maliciously inference below was based on a coercive privilege discussion in which the plaintiff repetitively informed her that he hardly needed discipline growing up because he had very good self discipline while growing up. This mode of question and leap of logic took place at the very first meeting;

“According to offender, his step mother was emotionally abusive towards him. He feels that she treated her own children better than him. Father was physically abusive ...used the belt on him on three occasions.”

(ANGELA PASQUALE, LEVEL OF SERVICE INVENTORY: ONTARIO REVISION, page 25)

[764] The Plaintiff further alleges that, the Probation Officer repetitively kept asking about physical and sexual abuse to the point of coercion and the Plaintive repetitively informed her that he was a child which did not need a lot of discipline, because he had very good self discipline, this is what everyone loved about him as a child. The Plaintiff said he only could remember three instances of punishment to correct wrongful behaviour, like having a water fight (play) in the basement.

[765] The Plaintiff alleges that, If the Probation Officer wanted to know about abuse, she should consider the caucasian science teacher spanking him with a ruler in Brampton(SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL PUBLIC SCHOOL) for pretending to marry two play mates in grade six. She should consider why, when Officers randomly stop the Plaintiff, they insist on inquiring about drugs, drug dealers and alcohol. She should have considered the brutalization he suffered at the hands of Officers and the destruction to the Applicant’s life and his children’s life the malicious prosecution has cause. She should have considered her assault/battery of the Plaintiff and her efforts of trying to put him in jail for 15 days without legal justification or evidence. This is the reason her Information and improper efforts to effect false imprisonment was defeated; it was withdrawn for want of evidence and inability of the Crown Prosecutor to prove the case at bar.

[766] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Probation and Parole Officer( Angela Pasquale);

“...There appear to be no drug/alcohol issues

{...}

Responsivity concerns: denial”

(ANGELA PASQUALE, LEVEL OF SERVICE INVENTORY: ONTARIO REVISION, page 26)

[767] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the “CROWN COUNSEL BRIEF” for Information No.: 09-014407, the Breach of Probation order was based on the following dates;

“ABSENCES

Not available Fridays

November 5, 2009

November 26, 2009

December 14, 2009

December 17, 2009

December 24, 2009 to January 8, 2010

August 16-23, 2010

July 26-August 10, 2010

October 4-11, 2010”

[768] The thing to notice here is that all these dates falls after the probation period has been successfully completed. Furthermore, at the time of the filing of the Information No.: 09-014407, on October 26, 2009 rendered some of the dates as false dates or fabricated evidence.

[769] The Plaintiff alleges that, T.A. PATTERSON & ASSOCIATES INC., ASSESSMENT MEMORANDUM (DRUGS/ALCOHOL), dated April 15, 2009, occurred on that said date.

[770] The Plaintiff alleges that, in his humble opinion he had no Human Rights, which the Probation contract stripped him of when he entered into the Probation order/contract in “bad faith” with the State. It is under the aforementioned conditions the Ministry of Correctional Services and Community Safety wish to proceed on there plans, to mine for “self incrimination” information and “psychological evidence”. Then to harvest the said information to support there YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES Crack Cocaine theory.

[771] According to the QUBEC CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Right to secrecy.

9. Every person has a right to non-disclosure of confidential information.

Disclosure of confidential information.

No person bound to professional secrecy by law and no priest or other minister of religion may, even in judicial proceedings, disclose confidential information revealed to him by reason of his position or profession, unless he is authorized to do so by the person who confided such information to him or by an express provision of law.

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

[772] The Plaintiff alleges that the following events took place during T.A. PATTERSON’s drug/alcohol assessment; the Plaintiff said to the counsellor; “My I have your card please?”

She replied; “This is just a one time thing”; as if he was an information prostitute. He was offended by the statement.

The Applicant repeated; “May I please have your card?”

The counsellor reluctantly surrendered her card to him.

[773] The Plaintiff alleges that, he asked her “Am I your client/patient?” To which she replied “Yes”.

The Applicant asked the counsellor; “Do the rules of privilege apply in our relationship?” To which she replied; “No”.

[774] The Plaintiff alleges that, he asked the counsellor; “Will you be giving evidence in court?” To which she replied “I will be giving my assessment to the probation officer”.

The Applicant asked the counsellor; “Will your documents be used as evidence in court”

To which she replied “I will be giving my assessment to the probation officer”.

The Applicant asked the counsellor; “will you abide by the implied covenant of good fait and fair dealings?”

She claimed that she did-not know what he was talking about.

[775] The Plaintiff alleges that, he informed the counsellor of his DRUG SCREENING TEST, performed on the 28^th of March 2007, immediately after his bond hearing for GO 07-70285. The counsellor asked the Applicant;

“if the test was immediately after the arrest?”

[776] The Plaintiff alleges that, It would be prudent to make a mental note, that this is the type of question a legal professional or law enforce officer would ask; for evidence of this nature to comply with the Rules of Evidence and be admissible of the said evidence as an Exhibit in Court.

[777] The Plaintiff alleges that, Without informing the Plaintiff of his rights to self-incrimination to a person in authority or cautioning him of the consequences of self-incrimination. Ms. Marguerite Campbell B.S.W, proceeded rapidly through her questions.

[778] The Plaintiff alleges that, She asked the Plaintiff, if he ever drink or take drugs. he told her that he have never taken drugs and he rarely drink. He may consume the equivalent of six beers per year.

[779] The Plaintiff alleges that, She asked the Plaintiff, when was the last time he drank. He told her that he doesn’t know. She asked again for a second time. The Applicant asserted again, that he doesn’t remember the last time he had a drink.

[780] The Plaintiff alleges that, She asked; “ What do you do?”

The Plaintiff replied to the counsellor; “I study, exercise and write poetry”.

She asked; “What are the negative effects when he drinks?”(this is a leading questing). The Applicant replied yet again; that he rarely drinks!”

She tried to win his confidence by reassuring him that drinking is not an illegal act.

The Applicant remained silent.

[781] The Plaintiff alleges that, She boldly asserted; “You still drink”, with citation to six beers per year. The Plaintiff paused in contemplation and bewilderment; He was confused and perplexed in wondering how can he objectively and reasonably answer this question. The question had a faulty assumption and a logical disconnect between cause and effect. He would have to have consumed a necessary and sufficient amount of alcohol, for the existence of negative effects of which the counsellor was implying. There is an essential demand on the cause by the effect, for manifestation of negative effects to occur in any person. She expected the effects to happen without any cause. The Applicant had a female friend in my twenties; who he occasionally went with to dance parties and work parties. She would confidently ask him at these social events to watch over her when she drinks. The Applicant’s friend directed him not to let her do anything regrettable, while she was drunk. She put her trust in him because she knew his very stringent drinking habits and his trust worthiness. I replied to the counsellor by asking her; “what negative effects she was speaking about.”

[782] The Plaintiff alleges that, she asked the Plaintiff if he was residing with family. He replied by telling her that she already have that information from the probation officer.

The counsellor asked about family history of Drugs/Alcohol.

He replied by telling her that he was only there for himself.

[783] The Plaintiff alleges that, the counsellor asked the Plaintiff if he had Bipolar Disorder; failing to define what it was. At the time the Applicant did-not know what bipolar disorder was. The Applicant replied by informing her, that the aforementioned question was a psychological question. And she is not a qualified psychiatrist.

[784] The Plaintiff alleges that, the counsellor asked the Applicant another question, which he failed to record or remember. He also failed to answer the forgotten question to her satisfaction. She boldly asserted; “I am refusing to answer her questions and the assessment was over !!”

Maybe the Plaintiff is too sensitive. Which he is. But he like this about himself; because it empowers him to have a great deal of care and concern about other people.

[785] The Plaintiff alleges that, in is limited unprofessional opinion and experience. The aforementioned session with Counsellor Marguerite Campbell B.S.W; had nothing to do with counseling. But was a cleaver interrogation for self incrimination information; wrapped in an envelop of benign counseling. The Applicant defines this as “SELF-INCRIMINATION MINING”. This is the method used by “hackers” to hack into computer system byway of social engineering to implement there craft. Gaining access to privilege information byway of an harmless personification.

[786] The Plaintiff alleges that, the Plaintiff was made to feel like legal refuge on an unethical assemble line; prepackaged and predetermined for the unholy fringes of society. This violates the notion of common decency, social morality and the public good. There was a lack of duty of care, good faith, professional accountability and trust. Which acts as a constraint to guarantee honour, honesty, integrity, human decency and trust. This under mines the integrity of, The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, and brings there credibility into disrepute. This cannot be in the interest of the Public or Administration of Justice. The aforementioned matter cries out to the CONSCIENCE OF THE COURT.

[787] The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to Marguerite Campbell;

Wayne stated that he never used drugs.

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

[788] The Plaintiff alleges that, he tried in vain to get written articulated reasons and justification for unwarranted Drugs/Alcohol subjective assessments.

[789] The Plaintiff alleges that, he has been trying for about a year to no avail, to obtain a certified hard copy of the T.A. Patterson’s Drugs/Alcohol subjective assessment performed on his persons, while under duress. Even though the Applicant officially requested the said information four time in written and signed document.

[790] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 2^nd of September 2009, at about 9:00 A.M. Madame Angela Pasquale advised the Applicant that there was no need for him to attend any more probation appointments. However, if he moved he must contact and inform her of the move.

At the said meeting the Applicant asked the Probation Officer where he should report to be charged for not seeing an undefined psychiatrist for undefined justification with none-articulated reasons. In short participate in arbitrary undefined subjective test.

[791] The Plaintiff alleges that, She asked why the Applicant will-not see the in house psychiatrist. He boldly asserted to the probation officer, that it was immoral to ask someone to go and see the institution’s psychiatrist without written articulated reasons or justification! At the said meeting the Applicant also presented Madame Angela Pasquale with a formal information requisition for the third time. Requesting a copy of the T.A. Patterson’s subjective Drugs/Alcohol assessment and other information. She had advised the Applicant before the Drugs/Alcohol subjective test was administered, that the results would be available if he requested it.

[792] The Plaintiff alleges that, the he presented her with the aforementioned document in her office during the last of the regular meetings. When the meeting was over and the Applicant was leaving, she violated the Applicant’s personal space and aggressively placed the said document in his backpack (“stuffed it in”) with sufficient force for him to feel the resulting force applied to the backpack. Which was on his back at the time, without his permission. This is assault!

[793] The Plaintiff alleges that, he removed the said document from his backpack, dropped it on the floor and advised Madame Angela Pasquale that the citation for the laws which form the basis for his requisition, were in the document.

[794] The Plaintiff alleges that, Madame Angela Pasquale 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 YRP.

[795] According to the CIVIL CODE OF QUEBEC;

Art. 6. Every person is bound to exercise his civil rights in good

faith.

Art. 7. No right may be exercised with the intent of injuring

another or in an excessive and unreasonable manner which is

contrary to the requirements of good faith.

Art. 1375. The parties shall conduct themselves in good faith

both at the time the obligation is created and at the time it is

performed or extinguished.

(Civil Code of Quebec)

[796] According to a Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal justice System;

Systemic Racism

“By systemic racism we mean the social production of racial inequality in decisions about people and in the treatment they receive. Racial inequality is neither natural nor inherent in humanity. On the contrary, it is the result of a society's arrangement of economic, cultural and political life. It is produced by the combination of:

• social constructions of races as real, different and unequal (racialization);

• the norms, processes and service delivery of a social system (structure), and

• the actions and decisions of people who work for social systems (personnel).

The discussion begins with radicalization, the driving force of racial inequality. Next we show how the elements of operating norms, decision-making processes and ways of delivering services may incorporate racialization in systemic practices and may support, transmit or tolerate it. We also examine the role of the personnel within this structure and how they affect its processes. Finally, we briefly describe some ways of recognizing systemic racism.”

(Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal justice System, page 39)

[797] BILL OF RIGHTS:

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

Preamble

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

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

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

Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

PART I

Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;

Construction of law

2. Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to

(e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;

There are no posts in this folder...

PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

Author Information

PART 3 - WHY I AM HATED, DISPISED, AND LEGALLY BULLIED IN ONTARIO COURTS?

Folder Contents

Free Membership

Who's online

Online users

Who's new