PART 4 - 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

JUSTIFYING SYSTEMIC RACISM/RACIAL PROFILING:

[798] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 25^th of August 2011, at about 11:30 P.M. the Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested by Officer Pekeski(2261).

[799] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 26^th of August 201 the Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested under M.A. after calling 911 to report an assault on more than one occasion in addition to more assaults and the acting sargeant portraying a threading demeanor towards.

[800] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 26^th of August 2011 Dr. Jeffry Handler, in the very early morning the Emergency Medical Doctor place him on a FORM 1, after seeing the Plaintiff for less than 1 minute.

[801] The Plaintiff alleges that, Dr. Jeffry Handler walked into the room and placed or dropped a white sheet of paper on the bed as though the Plaintiff did-not deserve or require due process; which he later found out was a Form 42. which indicated on the back that he had the right to instruct a lawyer.

[802] The Plaintiff alleges that, the same Form 42. was not handed to him in my hand and explained in a meaningful way nor was I informed of my Rights in a meaningful way nor was my rights administered to forthwith. I was not even told of the existence, importance or relevance of such a form, it was just thrown on the bed like he was a “dog being fed.”

[803] The Plaintiff alleges that, Dr. Handler’s articulates in FORM 42 in the following manner;

“This is to inform you that Dr. Jeffry Handler examined you on 26/08/2011 and has made an application for you to have a psychiatric assessment.

The physician has certified that...he has reasonable cause to believe that you have:

behaved or behaving violently towards another person or have caused or are causing another person to fear bodily harm from you; or

shown or are showing a lack of competence to care for yourself and that you are suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in:

• serious bodily harm to yourself;

• serious bodily harm to another person; or

• serious physical impairment of you....”

[804] The Plaintiff alleges that, in addition to being placed on a FORM 1., two viles of blood was taken from the Plaintiff without his express permission for drug screening test and other undisclosed reasons.

[805] The Plaintiff alleges that, Dr. Jeffry Handler slander/libel as false evidence in Form 42., to procure a legal instrument without medical or lawful excuse and in contravention of Section 137 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Furthermore, the aforementioned slander in was later repeated to his person on more than one occasion by a nurse working at the same medical institution; whom declared in a loud clear direct voice on more than one occasion that the Plaintiff was “violent and threatening people”

“2. Process Preoccupation

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

{...}

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

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

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

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

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

{...}

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

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

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

[807] The Applicant alleges that Officer B. Hird Information did not have jurisdiction over the allege charges in information 07-02500, nor did information 07-02500 find process, since only a legal entity is given the authority by the Criminal Code of Canada to file charges; furthermore his oath of reasonable belief is a “false oath”, his Identity is false and B. Hird does not exist as a distinct legal entity at York Regional Police, as a Police Officer duly sworn and in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen.

[808] Officer B. Hird is in-fact a phantom which has successfully filed an information of reasonable belief, a phantom which has successfully took an oath of reasonable belief before a Justice of the Peace, a phantom which has successfully retained process from Justice Forfar for Information 07-02500, and a phantom which has 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, acts of omission and without lawful authority or lawful process.

[809] Moreover, a phantom whom has successfully retained a lawyer, and a phantom which has successfully convince the ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, that monies must be paid for cost incurred in civil litigation against B. Hird, the same phantom Officer which does not exist at bar nor is employed by Her-majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario. This is by far 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.

[810] The Applicant alleges that the Crown’s prosecution which relied upon the process found by B. Hird Information 07-02500 and the process found by Joe Willmets(974) Information 07-02559, is a malicious prosecution based upon criminal actions and act of omissions. Moreover, the Applicant alleges that prosecuting Crown Attorneys effected Legal Fraud to be successful in their prosecution of the Plaintiff; furthermore, the Applicant further alleges that Crown Attorneys effected Legal Fraud to maintain a successful conviction and a continued prosecution of the Plaintiff. The aforesaid is proximate cause of actions or acts of omission, to use reasonable anticipation in preventing foreseeable damage to the Plaintiff.

[811] The Applicant alleges that he reasonable and probable believe and do believe that, on or about the 30th day of April, 2009 Crown rescinded or returned to it’s origin a “YRP AUDIO CD” earmarked for disclosure to the Plaintiff without notice and while Assistant Crown Attorney Mr. Billington had Carriage and control of the Plaintiff’s matter(07-02500/07-02559). The Applicant further alleges that the disc contained the audio recordings of all communications between the York Regional Police call centre and all officers dispatched in relation to Incident #07-70285, contained relevant evidence to the contrary to Officers given evidence of the existence of reasonable cause to arrest. The aforementioned is mens rea for crimes committed.

[812] The Applicant alleges that Crown’s Agents has willfully withheld and suppressed relevant evidence from the Plaintiff, the Public, and the Courts relevant evidence which supports a technical defence denied to the Applicant, relevant evidence which shows Public Agents Crimes of Legal Fraud to deny the Plaintiff of his legal rights while effecting a prosecution. The aforementioned is mens rea for crimes committed.

[813] The Plaintiff alleges that, the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, lied to Ms. Soo Kim(Freedom of Information Commissioner) concerning when the Plaintiff personal information request(#11-1244) was served on them.

[814] The Plaintiff alleges that, WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, returned the Plaintiff’s personal information request to him and only agreed to disclosed information in his file after he appealed the same matter to the INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSION.

[815] Pursuant to the following a covenant or contractual obligation or binding promise exist between the Canadian people and the Canadian signature state parties;

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49

Preamble

The States Parties to the present Covenant,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,

Agree upon the following articles:

Article 2

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

Article 10

1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Article 11

No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.

Article 14

1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.

Article 15

1 . No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.

2. Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.

Article 26

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 50

The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions.

Article 51

2. Amendments shall come into force when they have been approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and accepted by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties to the present Covenant in accordance with their own respective constitutional processes.

3. When amendments come into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of the present Covenant and any earlier amendment which they have accepted.

[816] The Plaintiff alleges that, a relationship of trust exist between the Plaintiff, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

[817] The Plaintiff alleges that, a contract in the form of a covenant exist between the international community for the benefit of the Plaintiff and fellow Canadians, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

[818] The Plaintiff alleges that, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada are bound by their respective signature on promise taken on confidence to effect their contractual agreement duly laid out in THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.

[819] Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry articulates in her 2007 Report of the Court of Appeal for Ontario;

“ACCESS TO JUSTICE

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

{...}

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

{...}

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

[820] The Plaintiff alleges that, on the 29^th of March 2007 at 10:41 a.m., the Applicant’s wife (Amanda Ferron) picked up the York Regional Police Vehicle Impound Form (YRP 150( 02/05)) from 3D HQ for vehicle 1D4GP21R77B138672, from officer Mapley (Badge# 687). The Appellant’s vehicle was released to his wife on the same date at 11:55 a.m. at 20440 Hwy 11, King Township, Ontario by Elliott’s Towing Services. A copy of the YRP Impound form was given upon request; On the other side of the copy was a copy of page 21 of 38 of a online Criminal Code Text; Inappropriate material in the Applicant’s view within the context of it’s disclosure, mainly concerning bestiality. For example, “bestiality in presence of or by child”.

[821] The Plaintiff further alleges that, there is a want of responsibility, a need to adhere to professional standards of conduct, a lack of due diligence and common decency to guard against distribute of material of this nature to the Claimant’s wife, a mother of four young girls.

[822] The Plaintiff further alleges that, the distribution of inappropriate and obscene material concerning bestiality and bestiality in the presence of or by a child excepted as non damaging or not actionable by the collective good of the public, when the context surrounding the event is considered? There need to be an explanation, if the document at issue was only for internal use or private use of Elliott’s Towing Services employees, the intension, the purpose, desired objective and usefulness within the context of a PUBLIC INSTITUTION’s trusted Subcontractor for a GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT INSTITUTION.

[823] The Plaintiff further alleges that, ELLIOT’S TOWING SERVICES should be held to a higher standard of professional duty, which is inherited by its inherent position and professional responsibility.

[824] The Plaintiff further alleges that, his shortcomings or want of legal professionalism does not negate the dehumanizing Action. Would the public good, moreover, the collective consciousness of our moral society agree that the document of interest is appropriate or its distribution benign within the context of the Applicant’s arrest and subjugation to systemic racism. Moreover, is the action at issue in accordance with Elliott’s Towing higher professional responsibility owed to the public and as a TRUSTED LAW ENFORCEMENT INSTITUTION SUB CONTRACTOR?

[825] The Plaintiff further alleges that, there is damage to the Applicant’s humanity, human-dignity and Relationship of Trust between the State and the Applicant. Moreover, their is a deprecation of the apparent position and human worth of the Plaintiff and his family within the Georgina location of Regional Municipality of York Community . The Plaintiff’s humanity and human dignity is protected by legislation and it affords him the right to defend his human dignity in the Canadian democratic system of governance.

[826] The Plaintiff further alleges that, the Relationship of proximity of Elliott’s Towing Services with the York Regional Police Services, affords it a high requirement for the standards of reasonable care towards members of the collective, when dealing with the public byway of its trusted contract with a Crown or public institution. This standard of care is inherited from the YRP and should be expected. The Government’s cannot avail themselves of their responsibilities or covenant by subcontracting or delegating duties.

[827] The Plaintiff further alleges that, there is a Relationship of Trust between Elliott’s Towing Services and the Crown. If this is the case, then the Elliott’s Towing Services should deal with the Applicant with a similar standard of care with adjustments made for Crown or YRP subcontractors.

[828] The Plaintiff further alleges that, Elliott’s Towing Services cannot reap the rewards and benefits via there profitable subcontracting contract with the Crown and expect not to have any responsibility towards the Crown’s obligation to Canadians or the standard of reasonable care the Crown and the YRP must maintain in catering to the consciousness of the public to the ends of having a livable just society. Moreover, the Elliott’s Towing cannot expect to be immune to or absolve itself of all accountability and responsibility towards the standard of care the Crown and it’s Public Institutions must uphold.

[829] The Plaintiff further alleges that, the fact that Elliott’s Towing is a Trusted Subcontractor of York Regional Police Services, speaks volumes about whom YRP choose to be its friends, to do business with, to associate with and have a Relationship of Trust with. In short, it speaks in a tangible way about the prudent responsible operation an important public institution. “You are who your friends are?”

[830] The Plaintiff alleges that, Public Agents in the employment of Her Majesty the Queen in both the Right of Ontario and the Right of Canada has damaged his criminal(07-02559/C51190) matter and ability to give full answer in defence of his innocence to the Administration of justice.

[831] Pursuant to the the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK;

“11.3.5 Conduct of Post-Charge Proceedings

...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 )

[832] The Plaintiff alleges that, the following Provincial Public Agents tortfeasors are; Officer Pekeski(2261), William Hird(6058), Officer Joe Willmets(974), Officer G. Stribbell(529), Officer S. Broughton(1079), Officer D. Burd(1075), Cherly Goodier ,Peter Westgate, Jeffrey Costain, Joanne Stuart, Matthew Adams, Nicole Arbour, and Cindy Kreiger, Gloria Gingrich, and Angela Pasquale.

[833] The Plaintiff alleges that, the following Federal Public Agents tortfeasors are; COURT OF APPEAL DUPTY REGISTRAR - Sandra Theroulde, Paul Richard, Paulette Melanson, Joanne Santino.

[834] Pursuant to the Martin Report;

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

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

[835] The Plaintiff alleges that, he has been a victim of systemic racism.

[836] The Plaintiff alleges that, he has been a victim of racial profiling.

[837] The Plaintiff alleges that, he has been denied social security benefit entitlement by Employment Insurance Commission for reasons which do not have a solid foundation in law and he was assess by Insurance Agents articulating legal justification with in the context of fraud and a bias application of Benefit Entitlement.

[838] The Plaintiff alleges that, he has been denied Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness by the Employment Insurance Commission and the same State Cooperation has violated their contractual obligation.

[839] The Plaintiff alleges that, the PRIVACY COMMISSION OF CANADA has conducted a bias investigation and adjudication in the favour of the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION’S in an un reasonable amount of time, when pending litigation demanded a forthwith answer for contended issues with respect to privacy of laws.

[840] The Plaintiff alleges that, the PRIVACY COMMISSION OF CANADA and at least two of its agents violated the Plaintiff’s confidence and trust byway of broken promises of investigation after being duly informed of the importance or dependence their adjudication has on contended issues before the EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION TRIBUNALS and the Federal Appellate Courts.

[841] The Plaintiff alleges that, he has been denied Legal Competent Representation by LEGAL AID ONTARIO.

[842] The Plaintiff alleges that, he has been denied Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness in the matter of 07-02500 and 07-02559.

[843] The Plaintiff alleges that, he has been denied Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness in the matter of C51190.

[844] The Plaintiff alleges that, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO has failed protect the Plaintiff and his family in performing its express obligation articulated in the Charter; furthermore, the same State party has contravened its obligations articulated in the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS to which it is a proud signature.

[845] The Plaintiff alleges that, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA has failed protect the Plaintiff and his family in performing its express obligation articulated in the Charter; furthermore, the same State party has contravened its obligations articulated in the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS to which it is a proud signature.

[846] The Plaintiff alleges that, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA has failed to fulfill their contractual obligations.

[847] The Plaintiff alleges that, the enforcement of the law has been discriminatory in its application.

[848] The Plaintiff alleges that, the application of legal procedure has been none uniform and selective.

[849] The Plaintiff alleges that, he has been denied ACCESS TO JUSTICE or the fair and equitable use of the Courts to resolve contended legal matter or to seek the ends of justice for crime committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario.

[850] The Plaintiff alleges that, their has been a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in relation to an act or omission of the Government of Canada or Ontario. The Applicant alleges Section 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), 11(a), 11(b), 11(c), 11(d), 12, and 15 has been contravened.

[851] The Plaintiff alleges that, the following 9 constitutional issues exist and need to be dealt with judiciously.

[852] Pursuant to R. V. Smith;

“[30] The Crown concedes that s. 7 of the Charter will have been breached if I find that racial profiling was a factor in the decision to refer the accused for secondary customs inspection. I am in full agreement with this concession.

{...}

[33] Racism and its effects are undeniably an affront to human dignity. Whether overt, subconscious or systemic, racism undermines the self-image and respect of its victims, causes psychological stress and, of course, may cause tangible disadvantages of every manner and kind: see, Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling, Ontario Human Rights Commission, Toronto, 2003.“

(R. V. Smith, COURT FILE NO.: CRIMJ(F) 6474/02, DATE: 2004 1207; page 14&15)

[853] Pursuant to R. V. KHAN;

“ [45]...When I refer to improper police purposes I include purposes which are illegal, purposes which involve the infringement of a person's constitutional rights and purposes which have nothing to do with the execution of a police officer's public duty. Officers who stop persons intending to carry out unauthorized searches, or who select persons to be stopped based on their sex or colour, or who stop someone to vent their personal animosity toward that person, all act for an improper purpose. They cannot rely on s. 216(1) of the HTA even if they also have highway safety concerns when making the stop. [Empha- sis added.]”

(R. V. KHAN {2004} O.J. No.: 3819 (S.C.); page 14&15, para[45]-para[48])

[854] Pursuant to R. v. Khan;

“[69] Mr. Khan's rights under both ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter were violated. The Crown fairly conceded that if there was a finding of racial profiling, it would not be appropriate to admit the evidence of the cocaine under s. 24(2) of the Charter. I agree entirely. Conduct of this kind by the police is reprehensible. It cannot be condoned or excused. It is a most serious breach of Mr. Khan's human rights, as well as his rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter. The evidence of the cocaine is excluded. In the absence of the drugs, the Crown has no case. The charge against Mr. Khan is dismissed. “

(R. V. KHAN {2004} O.J. No.: 3819 (S.C.); page 14&15)

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 1:

[855] The Applicant intends to question the constitutional validity of Rule 16(5) and Rule 16(10) of the CRIMINAL APPEAL RULE SI/93-169.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 2:

[856] The Applicant seeks a determination or interpretation on which conflicting legislation take precedence, S. 65(5.2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or S. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom. Does the Occupational Health and Safety Act prevail over the Police Service Act when there is a conflict or contradiction between these two legislation? Furthermore, does the Police Service Act prevail over the Occupational Health and Safety Act within the context of section 15 of the Charter and with respect to a Police Misconduct complaint?

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 3:

[857] The Applicant seeks a determination or interpretation on which conflicting legislation take precedence, S. 69 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act R.S.O 1990 or S. 59(4) of the Police Service Act R.S.O. 1990. Does the Occupational Health and Safety Act prevail over the Police Service Act when there is a conflict or contradiction between these two legislation? Furthermore, does the Police Service Act prevail over the Occupational Health and Safety Act within the context of section 15 of the Charter and with respect to a Police Misconduct complaint?

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 4:

[858] The Applicant seeks a determination or interpretation on which conflicting legislation takes precedence, S. 113 (1) and S. 30 of the Employment Insurance Legislation S.C. 1996 or S. 22.1 of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990. Does the Employment Insurance Legislation prevail over the Evidence Act when there is a conflict or contradiction between these two legislation(Section 11(d), presumption of innocence, mens rea and discrimination)? Furthermore, does the Evidence Act prevail over the Employment Insurance Legislation with respect to conflicting legislation?

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 5:

[859] The Applicant seeks a determination or interpretation on which conflicting legislation take precedence, section 15 of the Charter or Ontario Regulations 587/91, Court of Justice Act, January 1, 1990 , the RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, the jurisdictional authority of presiding justices and the jurisdictional authority of the Attorney General of Ontario. When there is a conflict or contradiction between these two legislation? Furthermore, does the Ontario Regulations 587/91, Court of Justice Act, January 1, 1990

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 6:

[860] The following policies or apparent policies, claimed to be based on there respective legislation combine or concatenate to conflict with or oppose section 7, section 11(d) and section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

1. section 113(1) of of the Employment Insurance Legislation, and section 7.3.5.5, 7.2.3, 7.3.0 and 7.1.0 of the Employment Insurance Digest of Benefit Entitlement, (Employment Insurance Commission’s Policies), which are based on S. 30 of the Employment Insurance Legislation;

2. the Ontario Legal Aid Policies on Legal Aid Benefit Entitlement for Criminal Appeals based section 30(2) of the Ontario Legal Aid Legislation, for which Legal Aid assistance is not available in respect of criminal appeals where no custodial sentence has been imposed;

3. the policies towards Access and availability of Court Transcripts which is determined by cash payments to Court reporters for services render;

4. the collective personal belief of the collective Crown’s Agents working as Crown’s counsel on Transcripts and Appeals. In short the enforced unwritten directives of the collective prosecutors on transcripts with respect to appeals within the context of unrepresented, Indigent Appellant’s.

5. which legislation take precedence? Does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevail over the aforementioned collectively conflicting legislations/policies which are concatenated to work in consort against an accused person in giving full answer and defence?

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 7:

[861] The Applicant seeks a determination or interpretation on reasonableness of enveloping or wrapping section 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), 11(a), 11(b), 11(d), 12 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into section 9 of the Charter; to prudently and effectively deal vicariously through s. 9, with all of the aforesaid Charter concerns.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 8:

[862] The Applicant seeks a determination or interpretation of the reasonableness of the notion of “self-impose detainment” for about 20 minute investigative stop before the arrest and the notion of a “self-impose detainment” after the arrest within the context of section 9 of the Charter. Given that, Officer testifies that accused was not allowed to leave investigative area and a promissory $1000 bond was required to secure release from custody?

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 9:

[863] Furthermore, the Applicant intends to claim a remedy under subsection 24 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in relation to an act or omission of the

Government of Canada or Ontario. The Applicant alleges section 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), 11(a), 11(b), 12, and 15 of the Charter was violated.

[864] The CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION was never dealt with in a meaningful way, but Section 9 breach was substituted in and used to replace the constitution arguments which mainly spoke about procedural fairness and obligation byway of NATURAL JUSTICE, FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF JUSTICE, CHARTER, HUMAN RIGHTS, and the BILL OF RIGHTS;

(A) Section 10 of the Charter which is applicable during the investigative part of the legal process. S.10(a) and S.10(b) violation during the 20 minutes detainment of the Applicant before the implementation of the arrest was never address by the courts;

(B) Section 10 of the charter which are the afforded guarantees of Rights upon arrest. S.10(a) and S.10(b) were violated upon the implementation of the unlawful arrest and the Applicant was never informed of these afforded guaranteed Rights in a meaningful way, nor were they implemented without delay.

(C) Section 8 and 12 which are afforded Rights at the pre-charged stage of the investigation. Section 8 was activated when Officer Monk conducted an unlawful warrantless search of the Applicant work vehicle while he was in custody at 3DHQ. Section 12 was activated when Officer Burd who is not certified or qualified to use OC spray; unlawfully and negligently used a dangerous chemical on the passive Applicant. The Applicant was subsequently paraded pass an eyewash decontamination unit in the sally port of the station and left to suffer the full effects of the OC spray in the “Bull Pen”. These said constitutional issues was not dealt with by the courts in a meaningful way;

(D) Section 11 of the Charter which are afforded guaranteed Rights upon the filling of the Information and judicial proceedings are instituted. Section 11(a) which is triggered when the Crown failed to summon and inform the Applicant byway of identification of a new criminal Act in the form of Information 07-02559. The long unnecessary delay in the process triggered Section 11(b). Section 11(d), presumption of innocence was triggered when Officers determined the guilt of the Applicant to be positive in using Drugs (crack cocaine), without any evidence , the conscription of the Applicant to defeat himself in the continued search for self incrimination evidence. These said issues were not dealt with in a meaningful way in the criminal courts;

(E) Section 7, 15 and 26 which guides and govern the process, were triggered when their was a denial of NATURAL JUSTICE and the contravention of THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF JUSTICE, was never dealt with in a meaningful way in the criminal courts.

(F) Section 1. of the Human Rights Act, which insures equity in services was never address by the courts in a meaningful way;

(G) Section 1(a) and 2(e) of the Bill of Rights, the notion of Natural Justice, human worth, human dignity which oversees and guides administrative processes was engaged when systemic racism, bias and unfairness was introduced into the process. These Issues were not dealt with in a meaningful way by the courts.

[865] The Plaintiff allege that, within the context of the unlawful warrantless arrest. Four of the five Officers in question stated that Officer Broughton had reasonable objective cause to arrest and was part of the collective.

[866] The Plaintiff allege that, Officer Broughton states that he did-not have reasonable objective cause to arrest and was not a part of the collective, but he had justification to conduct a traffic stop of the Applicant.

[867] The Plaintiff allege that, Acting Sgt Williamson, one of the four Officers states that he does-not know what the Applicant was charged for and was confused about what he was arrested for.

[868] The Plaintiff allege that, Officer Broughton states in his Initial Investigative paper that Officer 1399 (Officer Monk) had reasonable cause to arrest the Applicant.

[869] The Plaintiff allege that, Six hours later Officer Stribbell changes this to all the Officers had collective reasonable cause to arrest the Applicant. Within the context of the aforementioned facts;

(a) is a changing reasonable objective cause consistent with the legal definition of reasonable objective grounds to arrest?

(b) is a changing reasonable objective cause consistent with the legal notion of reasonable honest belief?

(c) is the contradiction between Officer Broughton’s and the other four Officers collective reasonable objective cause consistent with the legal definition of reasonable objective grounds to arrest?

(d) is the contradiction between Officer Broughton’s and the other four Officers collective reasonable objective cause consistent with the legal notion of reasonable honest belief?

[870] The Plaintiff allege that, within the context of warrantless search. A warrantless search is prima facie unreasonable, so the Crown must justify it on a a balance of probabilities to be reasonable. The onus is on the Crown.

[871] The Plaintiff allege that, the warrantless search of the Appellant’s vehicle occurred while the Applicant was in custody in the “Bull Pen”(miles away from the vehicle), so the usually justification cannot be used to make the search lawful.

(a) If nothing is found or confiscated into evidence during an unlawful search, does this fact void the search from being unlawful?

(b) Would the finding and confiscation of incriminating evidence in an a warrantless search make the warrantless search unlawful?

(c) Is a arbitrary warrantless search an unlawful search?

(d) What is it that makes a warrantless search unlawful, the incriminating object or objects which is found, the search itself or the unlawful arbitrary actions of the Officer conducting the said search byway of “trespass to chattel”?

(e) Just because someone breaks and enters a home without the owners permission and without stealing or damaging any property; does not mean the said person is not liable for breaking and entering after violating the owners reasonable expectation of privacy, even if the perpetrator was to leave behind $1 000 000.00 for the owner!

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

3. The plaintiff claims:

(a) A preliminary injunction order restraining the defendants, its directors, officers, employees, agents and anyone else having knowledge of the terms of this injunction order from, directly or indirectly;

destroying, misplacing, distort or modify any of the remaining material

evidence concerning the following

i) C51190 COURT DOCUMENTS AND ALL SUPPORTING MOTION DOCUMENTS ie M38706, M39930, and all other motions--under the carriage and control of ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE;

ii) GO 07-70285-under the carriage and control of York Regional Police Services;

iii) CUB 2009-0494-under the carriage and control of EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION;

iv) PR 09-198646 -under the carriage and control of PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES;

v) PR 11-268181 -under the carriage and control of PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES;

vi) PR 11-268834 -under the carriage and control of PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES;

vii) Information 09-14407--under the carriage and control of ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West);

viii) Information 07-02500, information 07-02559- under the carriage and control of ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE(Central East) and ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central East);

ix) Court File Number: 3160-8271152B under the carriage and control of ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West)

Section 2(1)(b) of the TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT OF ONTARIO,

location 3160 under Offence Number 8271152B

Ontario Court of Justice

Provincial Offences Office

5 Ray Lawson Blvd

(905) 450-4770

Tel: 905 456 4700

UNKNOWN SPECIAL DAMAGES

In accordance with 25.06(9)(b);

The plaintiff claims:

(i ) damages for possible dental damage to child in the amount of $100 000.00;

(ii ) damages for strain, stress an fracturing of family relationships in the amount of $40 000.00;

(iii) damages for lost employment income work vehicles in the amount of $120 000.00;

(iv) damages for social and economic harm to wife and children in the amount of $40 000.00, which include the following victims;

1. Ayana Ferron, born March 12, 2000;

2. Alayha Ferron, born March 19, 2000;

3. Asha Hill, born July 28, 1994;

4. Anayia Ferron, born July 26, 2000;

5. Amanda Ferron, ex wife along with the beloved children and victim of the systemic racism in conjunction with fragrant violation of vicarious violation of child welfare laws and damage to the Plaintiff’s children. The Plaintiff see damages for potential, security, life, liberty and the completion of their complete education endeavors.

6. The Plaintiff seek the completion of his education and the complete removal of blatant lies from police record, false statistical information sent to the federal Government

7. Letter of apology and correction of disclosure of false information to Federal Government against the Plaintiff.

(v) cost of lawyer and transcripts in the amount of $6 000.00

(v) prejudgment interest on these amounts at the rate of % per year from, to the date of payment and post-judgment interest on the above amount in accordance with the Court of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1990, c. C.43; and

(vi) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

MODE OF TRIAL: Trial by Jury

1.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA:

(i) $ 10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

(iii) prejudgment interest on these amounts at the rate of % per year from, to the date of payment and post-judgment interest on the above amount in accordance with the Court of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1990, c. C.43.

2.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA:

(i) $ 10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

3.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against Paulette Melanson:

(i) $10 000.00 ;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

4.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against Privacy Commissioner of Canada:

(i) $1.00 in addition to a copy of the the following sent to the commission for investigation and adjudication;

(ii) disclosed copy of INTEK COMMUNICATIONS TERMINATION LETTER

(iii) disclosed copy of NOV 6/2008, EI COMMISSION LETTER

(iv) disclosed copy of DEC 09/2008, EI COMMISSION LETTER FRO J SANTINO

(v) disclosed copy of 20/11/2008, FINE ORDER OF ONT/MINA GIORDANO

(vi) disclosed copy of DEC 23/2008, LETTER TO PRIVACY COMMISSION

(vii) disclosed copy of DEC 22/2008, LETTER TO MRS. SANTINO

(viii) disclosed copy of DEC 08/2008, LETTER TO MRS. SANTINo

(ix) disclosed copy of SECTION 22.1 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT

(x) disclosed copy of LAW SOCIETY HEARING OF UPPER CANADA V. RAYMOND LI

(xi) disclosed copy of APPEAL-LAW SOCIETY HEARING OF UPPER CANADA V. LI

(xii) disclosed copy of EI COMMISSION-RESPONDENT’S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS;

(xiii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

(xiv) prejudgment interest on these amounts at the rate of % per year from, to the date of payment and post-judgment interest on the above amount in accordance with the Court of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1990, c. C.43.

5.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against Paul Richard:

(i) $10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

6.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against Employment Insurance:

(i) $60 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

7.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against JOANNE SANTINO(J. Santino):

(i) $3 000.00

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

8.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO:

(i) $ 10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

9.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO:

(i) $ 10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

10.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against MR. PETER WESTGATE:

(i) $ 10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

11.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against MR. JEFFREY COSTAIN:

(i) $ 10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

12.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against MS. JOANNE STUART:

(i) $ 10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

13.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against MR. MATTHEW ADAMS:

(i) $ 10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

14.) The plaintiff claims against MINISTRY of COMMUNITY SAFETY and CORRECTIONAL SERVICES:

(i) $1 000 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended.

15.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES:

(i) $ 10 000 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

16.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK:

(i) $ 10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

17.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES:

(i) full disclosure for OCCURRENCE # PR11-268181/PR 11-268834

(ii) $ 100 000.00;

(iii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

(iv) prejudgment interest on these amounts at the rate of % per year from, to the date of payment and post-judgment interest on the above amount in accordance with the Court of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1990, c. C.43.

18.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against Officer PEKESKI(2261) :

(i) Return of the following;

precious pink and purple notebook;

pouch with personal hygiene material;

wallet with identification items;

small black and blue athletic bag;

blue book or document bag with shoulder strap;

cell phone.

(ii) $ 10 000.00;

(iii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

19.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM:

(i) “All personal information” from the “HEAD” of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM.

(ii) ALL PAST REQUEST AND LETTERS SERVED ON THE HOSPITAL, AS WAS PROMISED BY RELEVANT MANAGEMENT IN THE MENTAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT“ from the “HEAD” of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM.

(iii) “MY MEDICAL FILE” from the “HEAD” of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM.

(iv) “All personal Health Records, Test, DRUG SCREENING, GENETIC FINGER PRINTING ETC. AND IF ANY OF MY BLOOD IS BEING STORED FOR FUTURE USE ” from the “HEAD” of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM.

(v) “A COPY OF THE POLICE REPORT USED ALONG WITH ANY ADDITIONAL MEDICAL INFORMATION USED AS THE BASES FOR THE FORM 1 APPLICATION AND JUSTIFICATION FOR CUSTODY AND MENTAL ASSESSMENT” from the “HEAD” of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM.

(vi) FORM 1 assessment or Application used to place me in custody” from the “HEAD” of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM.

(vii) “Hospital Policy on Mental health care, emergency care, and Hospital Policy on the use of pen and paper in the Mental Intensive Care Unit” from the “HEAD” of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM.

(viii) “Hospital Policy on availability and access to Pay phone and Courtesy Phone, in the Mental Intensive Care Unit” from the “HEAD” of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM.

(ix) “Hospital Policy on availability and access to Pay phone and Courtesy Phone, in the Mental Intensive Care Unit” from the “HEAD” of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM.

(x) “Hospital Policy on DISCRIMINATION” from the “HEAD” of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM.

(xi) $1 000 000.00

(xii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

(xiii) prejudgment interest on these amounts at the rate of % per year from, to the date of payment and post-judgment interest on the above amount in accordance with the Court of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1990, c. C.43.

20.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER:

(i) $1 000 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

21.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI(257691):

(i) $1 000 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

22.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against DR. R. HOOD:

(i) $10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

23.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against DR. PARTHA ACHARYYA:

(i) $10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

24.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against DR. CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH:

(i) $10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

25.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against MRS. HAMILTON:

(i) $10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

26.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against CINDY KREIGER:

(i) $10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

27.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against NICOLE ARBOUR:

(i) $10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

28.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against SALVATION ARMY:

(i) All personal information, a copy of personal file, a copy of all contracts and video documentation;

(ii) $1.00;

(iii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

29.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against HARRY BOOM:

(i) $10 000.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

30.) In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL:

(i) $1.00;

(ii) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15, as amended;

Date: Monday, October 26, 2015

________________________

Mr. Wayne FERRON (Plaintiff)

Wayne FERRON

3221 Derry RD. #3

PO BOX 13563

Mississauga,

ON, L5N 8G5

Tel: 416 420 1353,

Email: wayneferron@gmail.com

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Date: Monday, October 26, 2015

________________

Wayne FERRON

3221 Derry RD. #3

PO BOX 13563

Mississauga, ON, L5N 8G5

Tel: 416 420 1353, Email: wayneferron@gmail.com

TO: The Clerk of the Court--Registrar

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)

A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE

7755 Hurontario St, Brampton,

ON, L6W 4T6

Tel: 905 456 4700

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Constitutional Law Branch

Suite 3400, Exchange Tower

Box 36, First Canadian Place

Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6

fax: 416 973 3004

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA

as represented by

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Civil Law Branch

Suite 3400, Exchange Tower

Box 36, First Canadian Place

Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6

fax: 416 973 3004

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

112 Kent Street, Ottawa

Ontario, K1A IH3

Tel.: 613 995 8210

1 800 282 1376

fax: 613 947 6850

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

Paulette Melanson

File No.: INQ-002353

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

112 Kent Street, Ottawa

Ontario, K1A IH3

Tel.: 613 995 8210

1 800 282 1376

fax: 613 947 6850

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

Paul Richard

File No.: 7100 010299

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

112 Kent Street, Ottawa

Ontario, K1A IH3

Tel.: 613 995 8210

1 800 282 1376

fax: 613 947 6850

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

Employment Insurance

MISSISSAUGA-C

3085 Glen Erin Drive, ON, L5L 1J3

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY of Peel

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

JOANNE SANTINO(J. Santino)

Employment Insurance Commission

MISSISSAUGA-C

3085 Glen Erin Drive, ON, L5L 1J3

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY of Peel

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO

Constitutional Law Branch

4^th floor, 720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

416-326-2220 or 1-800-518-7901

Fax: 416-326-4007

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO

as represented by

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO

Civil Law Branch

8^th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

Tel: 416 314 2080

Fax: 416 326 4180

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

MR. PETER WESTGATE

CROWN ATTORNEY FOR CENTRAL EAST

Ministry of Attorney General

50 Eagle St. West

Newmarket, L3Y 6B1

Tel: 905 853 4800

fax: 905 853 4849

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

MR. JEFFREY COSTAIN

ASSISTANT CROWN ATTORNEY FOR CENTRAL EAST

Ministry of Attorney General

50 Eagle St. West

Newmarket, L3Y 6B1

Tel: 905 853 4800

fax: 905 853 4849

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

MS. JOANNE STUART

ASSISTANT CROWN ATTORNEY FOR TORONTO

Civil Law Branch

8^th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

Tel: 416 314 2080

Fax: 416 326 4180

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

MR. MATTHEW ADAMS

ASSISTANT CROWN ATTORNEY FOR TORONTO

Civil Law Branch

8^th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

Tel: 416 314 2080

Fax: 416 326 4180

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

MINISTRY of COMMUNITY SAFETY and CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

2301 Haines Road Suit 200,

Mississauga ON, L4Y 1Y5,

Tel: 905 279 7600

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

17250 Yonge Street, Newmarket,

Ontario, L3Y 6Z1

1 800-668-0398;

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

17250 Yonge ST., Newmarket,

Ontario, L3Y 4W5,

1 800-668-0398;

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL

10 Peel Centre Drive, Suite A and B,

Brampton, ON L6T 4B9

Phone: 905-791-7800 •

Toll-free: 1-888-919-7800 •

E-mail: Info @ Peel

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

7750 Hurontario Street, Brampton,

ON, L6V 3W6

(905) 453-3311

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

#2261 PEKESKI M.

7750 Hurontario Street, Brampton,

ON, L6V 3W6

(905) 453-3311

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM

Brampton Civic Hospital:

2100 Bovaird Drive

Brampton, Ontario

L6R 3J7

(905) 494-2120, ext 58333

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER

Brampton Civic Hospital:

2100 Bovaird Drive

Brampton, Ontario

L6R 3J7

(905) 494-2120, ext 58333

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI(257691)

Brampton Civic Hospital:

2100 Bovaird Drive

Brampton, Ontario

L6R 3J7

(905) 494-2120, ext 58333

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

DR. R. HOOD

Brampton Civic Hospital:

2100 Bovaird Drive

Brampton, Ontario

L6R 3J7

(905) 494-2120, ext 58333

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

DR. PARTHA ACHARYYA

Brampton Civic Hospital:

2100 Bovaird Drive

Brampton, Ontario

L6R 3J7

(905) 494-2120, ext 58333

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

DR. CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH

Brampton Civic Hospital:

2100 Bovaird Drive

Brampton, Ontario

L6R 3J7

(905) 494-2120, ext 58333

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

MRS. HAMILTON

Brampton Civic Hospital:

2100 Bovaird Drive

Brampton, Ontario

L6R 3J7

(905) 494-2120, ext 58333

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

CINDY KREIGER

10 Peel Centre Drive, Suite A and B,

Brampton, ON L6T 4B9

Phone: 905-791-7800 •

Toll-free: 1-888-919-7800 •

E-mail: Info @ Peel

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

NICOLE ARBOUR

PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS

2500 Cawthra Rd., Mississauga, ON, L5A 2X3

Tel: 905 281 1272

Fax: 905 273 7522

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

SALVATION ARMY

PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS

2500 Cawthra Rd., Mississauga, ON, L5A 2X3

Tel: 905 281 1272

Fax: 905 273 7522

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

HARRY BOOM

PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS

2500 Cawthra Rd., Mississauga, ON, L5A 2X3

Tel: 905 281 1272

Fax: 905 273 7522

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

(Central West Region)

Wayne Ferron

-versus-

Her Majesty the Queen

in Right of Canada, et al

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

(Central West Region)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT

A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS

COURTHOUSE

7755 Hurontario St, Brampton,

ON, L6W 4T6

Tel: 905 456 4700

AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM

(ACTION COMMENCED BY NOTICE OF ACTION)

NOTICE of ACTION issued on February 22^nd, 2012-

Wayne FERRON

3221 Derry RD. #3

PO BOX 13563

Mississauga, ON, L5N 8G5

Tel: 416 420 1353, Email: wayneferron@gmail.com

There are no posts in this folder...

PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

Author Information

PART 4 - WHY I AM HATED, DISPISED, AND LEGALLY BULLIED IN ONTARIO COURTS?

Folder Contents

Free Membership

Who's online

Who's new