PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

HRTO FILE NO.:2012-12585-I

(NONE) NO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER.:2012-12585-I

(ACTIVE CIVIL MATTER) NO FINAL ORDER for .:CV 12-716

(VEXATIVE ORDER) NO FINAL ORDER for .:CV 13-1060

SOCIAL TRIBUNAL.: 1106-04904

(01/06/11 to 30/11/11)   INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER: 1106-04904

CHILD/HOUSING/HOMELESS SHELTER/PRIVATE PROSECUTION/REPRISALS

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

______________________________________________

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA

for violation of

Section. 1, 8, 9, 11, 29, 47 of the HUMAN RIGHT ACT

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

(NO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER 2012-12585-I, NO FINAL ORDER CV 12-716, and there exist an INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER: 1106-04904 )

______________________________________________________

Pursuant to Section. 1, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 3.5, 8, 9, 11, 29, 47 of the Human Rights Code, Section. 15 of the Charter, Article 2(1), 3, 14(1), 23.87, 23.101, 23.105.25(c), 26., 27, 50, and 51 of the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, and Section 1 and 2 of the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Wayne FERRON

HOMELESS VAGABOND

BED#3 – 525Bloor Street East,

Toronto, Ontario, M4W 1J1

leegalpoet@gmail.com

HRTO – Registrar       

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14th floor

Toronto, ON M7A 2A3

Phone: 416-326-1519

Fax: 416-326-2199

TAKE NOTICE: NAME OF LOCATION OF CAUSE OF ACTION FOR HRTO 2012-12585-I, HAS BEEN CHANGED TO THE FOLLOWING NAME BELOW;

 

THE SALVATION ARMY PEEL SHELTER & HOUSING SERVICES (CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER)

 

which use to be called (old name):

 

PEEL RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTER (located @ 2500 Cawthra Rd., Mississauga, Ontario, L5A 2X3)

 

 

 

 [-15]  HRTO given PREMISE for HRTO 2012-12585-I:

“[6] The issues to be addressed at the hearing are as follows:

a. Should the Tribunal waive the requirement in Rule 14.4 that a request to reactivate a deferred Application be filed no later than 60 days after the other proceeding has concluded?

 

b. Whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code because the substance of it has been appropriately dealt with in another legal proceeding, in this case the civil suit(s) commenced by the applicant?”

 

[-14] ASSUMPTIONS (necessary & sufficient condition for PREMISE):

1.  notice of its intention to consider deferral of the Application was successfully served on all parties;

2.  FINAL ORDER of CV 12-0716-00 by the original Court has been issued and served on all parties;

3.  RULE A 7.1 has not been violated by parties

4.  NATURAL JUSTICE has not be violated;

5.  PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS has not been violated.

FACTS:

[-13]  VIOLATION OF RULE 14.2: DEFERRAL of HRTO 2012-12585-I was deferred byway of RULE 14.1 and BY a REQUISITION by the respondents without the serving of a  notice of its intention to consider deferral of the Application.

1.   VIOLATION OF RULE A 7.1: Because RESPONDENTS were not acting in GOOD FAITH but deceiving the HRTO-TROBUNAL in addition to acting criminally byway of retaining the Applicant’s property after he exercised his COLOUR OF RIGHT, in addition to suppressing evidence which would be contained in the DEEM REFUSAL of a twice PERSONAL INFORMATION REQUISITION;

2.   VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS and RULE 14.2: DEFERRAL of HRTO 2012-12585-I was deferred byway of RULE 14.1 and a REQUISITION by the respondents without the serving of an opportunity to make submissions.

3.   VIOLATION OF S 45: DEFERRAL is in violation of RULE 14.2, there is a violation S 45, because HRTO-Tribunal must defer an application in accordance with the Tribunal rules.  2006, c. 30, s. 5.

4.   VIOLATION OF S 45.1: DEFERRAL is in violation of RULE 14.2, there is a violation S 45.1, because HRTO-Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules;

5.   VIOLATION OF HRTO CASE LAW: DEFERRAL is in violation of following HRTO CASE LAWS;

    i.        Oram v. Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada;

   ii.        Chivers v. National Steel Car Ltd. 2012 HRTO 1150;

 iii.        Laba v. Windsor (City), 2009 HRTO 693;

 iv.        Laba v. Windsor (City), 2009 HRTO 382;

5. Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board  2013hrto1298-1.

 

[-12] Thus, for the reasons above, there is a violation of S 26.5 b and 26.5 c.

Pursuant to the THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA and Harry Boom;

The Defendants, The Governing Council of The Salvation Army in Canada {…} and Harry Boom (“Mr. Boom”), deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Statement of Claim.”

 

 

PLEASE SEE FINAL-AMENDED-AMENDED HRO 2012-12585-I, WHICH THE APPLICANT WAS DIRECTED TO FILE, BUT IT SEEMS ASTHOUGH IT WAS NOT REVIED

 

PLEASE SEE ALL APPENDIX “E”

RULE 14

DEFERRAL OF AN APPLICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL

14.1 The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative, at the request of an Applicant under Rule 7, or at the request of any party.

 

14.2 Where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an Application under Rule 14.1, it will first give the parties,

any identified trade union or occupational or

professional organization and any identified affected persons, notice of its intention to consider deferral of the Application and an opportunity to make submissions.

 

Deferral of application

45. The Tribunal may defer an application in accordance with the Tribunal rules.  2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Dismissal in accordance with rules

45.1 The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.  2006, c. 30, s. 5.

 

RULE A7.1 All persons participating in proceedings before or communicating with the tribunal must act in good faith and in a manner that is courteous and respectful of the tribunal and other participants in the proceeding.

 

[-11] 26.5 A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:

 

a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or

 

b) the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or

 

c) the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or 33 April 30, 2014

 

 

 

 

NO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER 2012-12585-I:

[-10] Pursuant to FREEDOM AND INFORMATION COORDINATOR Susan Benger July 15, 2015 signed letter to the Applicant;

``...The HRTO did not issue a Notice of Intent to Defer with respect to 2012-12585-I. The HRTO did not issue a Notice of Intent to Defer  with respect to this application...``

 

PLEASE SEE APPNDIX “A, C, F & G “

[-9] Pursuant to Blair McCreadie assertions;

b) In any event, the final decision in the civil action that is interrelated”

 

[-8] Pursuant to the Pauline Labelle (Supervisor)  and her subordinate Malanie Harvey ,  a Civil-Registrar Clerk  on the 19^th of August, 2015 at about Wicket # 14 (K242) at or about  8:41am, after being asked relevant questions by the Applicant;

     i.        CV 12-0716 has not been stayed (see Para[5]  of Justice Andrea’s Vexative Order;

    ii.        No one has filed Justice Andrea’ Vexative Order CV 13-1060 to stay CV 12-716;

   iii.        There is no final order for CV 12-0716;

  iv.        There is no existing orders or endorsements for CV 12-0716;

There is no final order for CV 13-1060 AFTER SHE DID AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH IN FILE CV 13-1060 (Pauline Labelle (Supervisor) there was no time limit for a FINAL ORDER and the onus was upon the Applicant to ensure there was one).  Pauline Labelle (Supervisor)  and her subordinate Malanie Harvey  accepted for filing at the BRAMPTON SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, “AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON CV 12-0716 under the condition of a “ON EXPLICIT  INSTRUCTIONS  FORM “ which states the following; 

“…request that the attached documents be accepted for filing based on their instructions as a party/lawyer/agent/paralegal, or based on the explicit instructions of a lawyer or paralegal…”

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX”G”

 

[-7] Pursuant Samuel v. Waterloo Regional District School Board;

“[2]               On December 15, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer under section 45 of the Code and Rule 14.2 of its Rules of Procedure, as it appeared that the applicant had filed a grievance dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. The Custodial and Maintenance Association was notified as an organization that might be affected by the Application.”

(Samuel v. Waterloo Regional District School Board, 2011 HRTO 498 (CanLII))

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX”J”

 

[-6] Pursuant Oram v. Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada;

“[8]           A further Case Assessment Direction dated February 15, 2012 (“the February CAD”) was issued to the parties.  In it, the Tribunal stated that in the circumstances of the case, it seemed appropriate for the Tribunal to defer this proceeding until the Claims Adjudication Officer resolved the applicant’s dispute.  It noted that pursuant to Rule 14.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, where the Tribunal intends to defer, it is required to first give the parties notice of its intention to defer and give them an opportunity to make submissions. …”

 ( Oram v. Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada)

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX”J”

 

 

 

[-5] Pursuant Chivers v. National Steel Car Ltd.;

“Deferral

[2]               The Application noted a pending grievance. On March 1, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer under Rule 14.2 of its Rules of Procedure, as it appears that the applicant had filed a grievance dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. The applicant’s Union (United Steelworkers Local 7135) was given notice of the application as an affected organization. The parties and the Union were invited to make written submissions on why the Application should, or should not be deferred.

{…}

 [4]               The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Code s.45; Rule 14.1). he initial consideration for the Tribunal in deciding whether or not to defer consideration of an Application is whether the same facts and issues are being raised before another decision-maker with the authority to deal with issues arising under the Code”

(Chivers v. National Steel Car Ltd. 2012 HRTO 1150 )

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX”J”

 

 

 

[-4] Pursuant Laba v. Windsor (City), 2009 HRTO 693;

“DEFERRAL

[4]  Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. Where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an Application, it will first give the parties, any identified trade union or occupational or professional organization and any identified affected persons, notice of its intention to consider deferral and an opportunity to make submissions (Rule 14.2).”

 

( Laba v. Windsor (City), 2009 HRTO 693)

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX”J”

 

 

[-3] Pursuant Laba v. Windsor (City);

“DEFERRAL  

[13]           Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application.  Under Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party.  Where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an application, it will first give the parties, any identified trade union or occupational or professional organization and any identified affected persons, notice of its intention to consider deferral and an opportunity to make submissions (Rule 14.2).

[14]           The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.  However, the Tribunal must also consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application. “

 

(Laba v. Windsor (City), 2009 HRTO 382)

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX”J”

 

[-2] Pursuant to   Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board;

“[1] Section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), gives this Tribunal the authority to dismiss all or part of an application where the substance of the application has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. In this Interim Decision, we re-examine this Tribunal’s approach to the interpretation and application of s. 45.1 when an applicant previously filed a public complaint about the conduct of a police officer under the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended (the “PSA”).

 

[2] In Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19, the Supreme Court held in an analogous situation, applying the common law doctrine of issue estoppel, that it would be unfair to preclude a public complainant from pursuing a subsequent civil claim because of the findings in the Ontario police officer discipline process. In our view, the appropriate interpretation of s. 45.1 does not permit the dismissal of a human rights application when this would lead to unfairness, given the nature of the other process and the difference in the issues at stake in that process. In light of the guidance of the Court about the unfairness that would result from dismissing a human rights application based on previous police disciplinary proceedings, these Applications must proceed.”

(PARA[1] TO [2], Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board  2013hrto1298-1)

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX”J”

 

[-1]  TAKE NOTICE: Causes of Actions and statements of facts ends in July 2012 in the STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV 12-71600), AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV 12-71600), and AMENDED-AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV 12-71600),

While HRTO 2012-12585-I Cause of Action starts on September 1, 2012, below is to Blair McCreadie assertions;

 

 

 [0]   Again the Applicant is demanding the return of his property immediately, in exercised of his COLOUR OF RIGHT byway of his articulation in load and clear English in the following way;

“I respectfully request byway of colour of right, for the RESPONDS to return forthwith my stolen property; mainly a personal check and a Canada Post money order for which service was not rendered in year 2012, nor was there a response about the same services for a “FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUISITION.”

 

Between the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO and the Toronto Region SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IS A STATUE OF A Lion and a Lamb, perfectly balanced on a tidor-tadour. On the monument is written in capital steel letters;

‘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’

 

I would like to think that my children and I are human beings with the same protected rights affected!”

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX”I”

 

[1]   HRTO 2012-12585-I without the issuing of a NOTICE OF INTENT TO DELAY or NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER as is required by HUMAN RIGHTS legislation; or a FINAL ORDER of CV 12-0716-00 which is also required by HUMAN RIGHTS legislation, and the RESPONDENT seem to infer/assert exist, but refuse to disclosed.

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX”A, H & G”

 

[2]    The originating court BRAMPTON SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE-civil registrar asserts that “THERE IS NO FINAL ORDER FOR CV 12-071600 or CV 13-1060.”

 

[3]  The NOTICE OF INTENT TO DELAY or NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER for HRTO 20-12585-I would have allow the Applicant the opportunity to give full answer in opposition of the same delay or deferral in accordance with HRTO Rule 14.2 and HRTO CASE LAWS, BILL OF RIGHTS, and the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ‘GOOD FAITH’ PROCEDURAL RULE (RULE A 7.1). The aforesaid is in essence a denial of NATURAL JUSTICE.

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX”A, H & G”

 

 [4]    The RESPONDENTS (THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA) relied on a none existent FINAL ORDER FOR CV 12-071600 to have HRTO-TRIBUNAL dismiss HRTO 2012-12585-I, byway of the reactivation of a deferral they requested themselves while not acting in good faith.

 

[5] Pursuant to Gurjit Singh Brar false assertion, a lawyer for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, in submission(at para[15, 17]) for ( HRTO 2012-12585-I), asserts the following on fairness and equity;

“15. pursuant to s. 40 of the Human Rights Code(the “Code”), the Tribunal has the authority to dispose of Applications made under Part iv “by adopting the procedures and practices provided for in its rules or otherwise available to the Tribunal which, in its opinion, offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the applications”.

{...}

17. The Tribunal has promulgated specific rules with respect to proceeding with Applications that have been deferred. According to Rule 7.5, …”

 

Disposition of applications

40.  The Tribunal shall dispose of applications made under this Part by adopting the procedures and practices provided for in its rules or otherwise available to the Tribunal which, in its opinion, offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the applications. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

 

RULE 14

DEFERRAL OF AN APPLICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL

14.1 The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative, at the request of an Applicant under Rule 7, or at the request of any party.

 

14.2 Where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an Application under Rule 14.1, it will first give the parties,

any identified trade union or occupational or

professional organization and any identified affected persons, notice of its intention to consider deferral of the Application and an opportunity to make submissions.

 

 

[6]   The above assertion is false because, the RESPONDENTS (THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA) requested and argued for the deferral of HRTO 2012-12585-I. Rule 7.5 is used in the deferral of an Application when the Applicant request the deferral, which is not the case for HRTO 2012-12585-I.

 

RULE 14

DEFERRAL OF AN APPLICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL

14.1 The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative, at the request of an Applicant under Rule 7, or at the request of any party.

 

14.2 Where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an Application under Rule 14.1, it will first give the parties,

any identified trade union or occupational or

professional organization and any identified affected persons, notice of its intention to consider deferral of the Application and an opportunity to make submissions.

 

[7]   On August 06, 2015, the Applicant attended the 2012-12585- I Hearing the HRTO OFFICE, BECAUSE HE WAS A HOMELESS VAGOBOND to address a matter concerning shelter COMPLAINT for he and his beloved daughter, and he did not have access to the equipment require for a telephone conference to which he opposed and has never attended in his life.

 

[7.5]   This was the first hearing since filing the complaint in September 20, 2012 which many unsuccessful attempts was made to dismiss HRTO 2012-12585-I. This is the speed that justice works for the Applicant and his beloved daughter, after the RESPONDENTS requested and was granted a delay in the matter even thought it had a different cause of action and a different time period of occurrence!

 

[8]   On August 06, 2015, at the HRTO office, the format of hearing was, the Respondents both first gave their argument opposing the Applicant’s REACTIVATION for a delay or deferral of HRTO 2012-12585-I, the RESPONDENTS themselves REQUESTED, after the Honorable Adjudicator Vice Chair David Muir, asserted that he has the filed participants arguments in there document for the hearing, so this was just in addition to those arguments;  then the Applicant was to gives a rebuttal to respondent’s argument even though it was the Applicant’s Application to Reactivate the Respondents granted delay or referral while the RESPONDENTS (THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA) were NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “G, H, I, & J”

[9]   On August 06, 2015, the Applicant demanded of the RESPONDENTS (THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA) byway of the COLOUR OF RIGHT, before the Honorable Vice Chair David Muir,  that RESPONDENTS (THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA), return forthwith his stolen personal check and $ 10.00 money (11 466 978 57 ) order for services not rendered or responded to.

 

[10]    That is search fees for a FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUISITION on or about April YEAR 2012. The Applicant exercised his COLOUR OF RIGHT byway of his articulation in load and clear English in the following way;

“I respectfully request byway of colour of right, for the RESPONDS to return forthwith my stolen property; mainly a personal check and a Canada Post money order for which service was not rendered in year 2012, nor was there a response about the same services for a “FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUISITION.”

 

Between the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO and the Toronto Region SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IS A STATUE OF A Lion and a Lamb, perfectly balanced on a tidor-tadour. On the monument is written in capital steel letters;

‘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’

 

I would like to think that my children and I are human beings with the same protected rights affected!”

 

 

PEASE SEE APPENDIX ``I``

 

[9]    Pursuant to the Applicant’s REQUISITION TO THE former ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR RETURN OF STOLEN PROPERTY:

 

“ATTENTION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

MR. JOHN GERRETSEN:

 

 

{…}

 

To the SALVATION ARMY

and

To the REGION OF PEEL or REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER

 

please return forthwith my $5 0r $10 check made out to the Minister of Finance and my $10(11 466 978 57 ) money ORDER issued by CANADA POST to the SALVATION ARMY for the SALVATION ARMY and ONTARIO WORKS.

 

CANADA POST MONEY ORDER INFORMATION:

                SERIAL NO.:               11 466 978 57

                SECURITY CODE: 679 965 794

                OFFICE NO.:               102 205

“

 

PEASE SEE APPENDIX ``I``

 

[11]   Which intern would show evidence of the restriction the RESPONDENTS were asserting or that THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA, Mr. BLESSING ANYANWU, and their lawyers were lying or at least misleading or obstruction the HRTO-tribunal.

 

PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT HOME_A-1-IPC

ONTARIO-WORK (IPC) 2ND INFORMATION AND PRIVACY REQUEST IN EXHIBIT HOME_A

 

[12] In the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY’ S initial response (no response from the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL), Mr. BLESSING ANYANWU, ADMITTED TO REPRISAL and denial of goods and services with a justification of the same REPRISAL against Wayne Ferron the Applicant in an EMAIL disclosed byway of Lawyers of the Salvation Army, which runs contrary to the policy on SHELTER STANDERS, Ontario HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, and the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, while it would seem he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “D”

 

[13]         Pursuant to the Blessing Anyanwu (Director) from the  REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER at 2500 Cawthra Rd. Mississauga, at or about 12:07 p.m., on  September 06, 2012 in his Email response to Kelly-Anne Salerno (Human Services Department Program Supervisor, Client & Community Access Division…), after the Applicant spent from September 1, 2012 to September 6, 2012 across the Cawthra Road without food, water, a bed, or bathroom facilities while the REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER had beds available and the same Shelter was not filled to capacity or being fully utilized;

`` Staff already informed him that he is restricted,  and cannot be admitted. He wanted to know why he is restricted. Staff referred him to management. Allison and I met with him in the lobby at about 10:30 AM.

 

I informed him that he cannot be re-admitted at this time due to his law suit against the Salvation Army and the Region of Peel {…}He said that we cannot hold this against him; this is against his human rights…``

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “D”

 

[14]   Mr.  Blessing Anyanwu (Director) assertion of RESTRICTION is false or he was plain and simply lying, for the following reasons and in addition to requesting for a list of homeless shelters to which the INTAKE CLERKS at the same shelter denied him access to a homeless shelter list;

    i.        Restriction is about 14 days at HOMELESS SHELTER located at 2500 Cawthra Road at the relevant time;

   ii.        Restriction carries a maximum of 179 day at the ST. SIMON’S HOMELESS SHELTER ,located in Toronto;

 iii.        Mr.  Blessing Anyanwu (Director) personally requested of the Applicant to return back to HOMELESS SHELTER located at 2500 Cawthra Road after Mr. Harry Boom unlawfully evicted the Applicant without reasonable EVICTION NOTICE or lawful CAUSE;

 iv.        The Applicant had not been a client at the HOMELESS SHELTER located at 2500 Cawthra Road for more about a year;

For all the above reasons, a lawful RISTRICTION in accordance with SHELTER STANDERS is not legally possible;

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E”

 

[15] Pursuant to Blair McCreadie, a lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, in his submission(at PARA[8]) in his submission matter ( HRTO 2012-12585-I), asserts the following while jumping from the year 2011(Mr. Harry Boom and Civil matter CV 12-2012-i), to the HRTO matter 2012-12585-I(BLESSING ANYANWU  and denial of homeless services), without making any factual statement about the cause of Action of the HUMANRIGHTS MATTER(2012-12585-I), except for;

 “On September 20, 2012, the Applicant then commenced this Application.”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “D, E, F, & I”

Pursuant to the THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA and Harry Boom;

“The Defendants, The Governing Council of The Salvation Army in Canada {…} and Harry Boom (“Mr. Boom”), deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Statement of Claim.”

 

[16]   TAKE NOTICE: Causes of Actions and statements of facts ends in July 2012 in the STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV 12-71600), AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV 12-71600), and AMENDED-AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV 12-71600), While HRTO 2012-12585-I Cause of Action starts on September 1, 2012. Below is to Blair McCreadie assertions;

Pursuant to the THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA and Harry Boom;

“The Defendants, The Governing Council of The Salvation Army in Canada {…} and Harry Boom (“Mr. Boom”), deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Statement of Claim.”

 

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “D, E, F, & I”

 

[17] Mr. Blair McCreadie himself confirms that his assertions or arguments that the matter concerning HARRY BOOM(CV 12-0716-00) and the matter concerning BLESSING ANYANWU (HRTO 2012-12585-I) are false, because he himself provides the contradiction to make his arguments for a deferral of HRTO 2012-125/85-I false in his own assertion above in PARA[5] “5. Prior to commencing this Application, the Applicant commenced a civil action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, bearing Court File No. CV-12-0716-00 (the “Action”)…Amended Statement of Claim, issued on August 21, 2012 ,” which is before the cause of action of HRTO 2012-12585-I which starts on September 1, 2012 and was filed on or about September 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA and Harry Boom;

“The Defendants, The Governing Council of The Salvation Army in Canada {…} and Harry Boom (“Mr. Boom”), deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Statement of Claim.”

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “D, E, F, & I”

 

[18] On or about July 13^th, 2011 the SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL, made an INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER (1106-04904) in the following manner;

 

“...The Tribunal directs that the Administrator, Social Services Dept Region

of Peel, pay interim assistance to the above noted appellant effective

June 01, 2011 to November 30, 2011...”

Pursuant to the THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA and Harry Boom;

“The Defendants, The Governing Council of The Salvation Army in Canada {…} and Harry Boom (“Mr. Boom”), deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Statement of Claim.”

 

[19] On or about August 2^nd, 2011 Ontario-Works (Region of Peel), again redundantly terminated financial assistance to which the Applicant was not in receipt of, and in contravention of SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER(1106-04904), and Section 127(1), 22.1 or 22.2 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, while the same order was in full force byway of Section 3.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA . Jane Anderspn-Renton(Manager), articulated the aforesaid in the following manner;

 

“Your current financial assistance has been suspended because: you

cannot receive financial assistance if you reside in an institution that provide

for your basic needs and shelter. Your financial assistance will stop

as of August 2nd, 2011 because you are living in an institution.”

 

Pursuant to the THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA and Harry Boom;

“The Defendants, The Governing Council of The Salvation Army in Canada {…} and Harry Boom (“Mr. Boom”), deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Statement of Claim.”

 

[20] On or about August 15^th, 2011 Nicole Arbour/Rudo Chiyangwa, served on the Applicant a notification letter to leave the , PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, with no mention of any financial discontinuation or wanting of assessment documents because she already received all the necessary documentation needed for ONTARIO-WORKS assessment, and while she was fully briefed on the Applicant’s need to perfect his COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO appeal hearing(C51190) schedule to be heard on September 7^th, 2011.

 

[21]  Furthermore he recently finished notifying the same court of his new address and contact information, which is an official requirement by the criminal judicial process. They articulated their aforesaid notification in the following manner;

 

“...It has come to our attention that your stay has exceeded the 2

week period our shelter is mandated for; your original intake date was

July 7th, 2011. Although we would like to continue supporting you in this

time of transition you need to have secured accommodations no later than

August 22, 2011. If you are unable to secure accommodations by, we will

be happy to assist you in securing a bed at a shelter outside of Peel

Region...”

 

 

[22] On or about September 2^nd, 2011 Ontario-Works (Region of Peel) again, redundantly terminated financial assistance to which the Applicant was not in receipt of, and in contravention of SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER(1106-04904), and Section 127(1), 22.1 or 22.2 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, while the same order was in full force byway of Section 3.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. Ontario-Works (Region of Peel), the SALVATION ARMY, and 2500 Cawthra Road.

 

[23]  PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, was aware and well informed that the Plaintiff was unlawfully imprisoned at the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, Mental Intensive Care Unit. Suzanne Finn (Manager AT Ontario-Works), again articulated the redundant termination of financial assistant in the following manner;

 

“...This letter is to notify you of the suspension of the financial assistance

you receive from the Ontario Works program(OW). Your current

financial assistance has been suspended because: we have requested

Participation Requirements, Chequing/Saving Accounts and Rent

information and you have not provided it. This information is need to determine if you are [still] eligible for Ontario Works and to make sure that

you get the right amount of financial assistance.

You have not given use the information that we need. Your financial assistance

will stop as of September 2nd, 2011...”

Pursuant to the THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA and Harry Boom;

“The Defendants, The Governing Council of The Salvation Army in Canada {…} and Harry Boom (“Mr. Boom”), deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Statement of Claim.”

 

 

PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT HOME_A-2nd DAVID MILLER(OW SUPERVISOR) ON PAGE 188 & 189, TO VIEW A COPY OF THE SAME ORDER

 

PLEASE SEE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E”

 

 

[24]   By comparison, Blair McCreadie or the RESPONDENT (THE GOVERNING CONCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY) assertion contradicts the the SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER(1106-04904), in addition to providing evidence that the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL was actively disobeying or violating the same COURT ORDER which was in full force byway of Section 3.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. The same court order was disclosed to the REGIONAL MUNICIPAL OF PEEL on more than one occasions by the Applicant.

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “D, E, F, & I”

 

 [25]   MR. Blair McCreadie or the RESPONDENT’s false assertion below contradicts the the SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER(1106-04904), in addition to providing evidence that the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL was actively disobeying or violating the same COURT ORDER which was in full force byway of Section 3.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. The same court order was disclosed to the REGIONAL MUNICIPAL OF PEEL on more than one occasions by the Applicant.

 

[26] Pursuant to Blair McCreadie, a lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, in his submission(at PARA[8]) in his submission matter ( HRTO 2012-12585-I), asserts the following;

Pursuant to the THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA and Harry Boom;

“The Defendants, The Governing Council of The Salvation Army in Canada {…} and Harry Boom (“Mr. Boom”), deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Statement of Claim.”

 

PLEASE SEE PARA[8] OF GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY’S SUBMISSIONS.

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E”

 

[27] Blair McCreadie, a lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY ought to have known or should have known that there were actions in contravention of Section 127(1), 22.1 or 22.2 the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, when challenging, and blatantly contravening the SOCIAL TRIBUNAL INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER.: 1106-04904 in the year 2011, and thereafter misleading the HRTO TRIBUNAL in contravention of Section 4.01 of the RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, and in contravention of Section 137 and 131 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E”

 

[28] Mr Blair McCreadie, a lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY assertions in his submission(at PARA[8]) are false for the following reasons;

    i.        The SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL ordered that ONTARIO-WORKS pay benefits (funding) byway of its  INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER: 1106-0490 from June 1, 2011 to November 30, 2011, so there should have been no problem with funding if the aforesaid court order was being complied with. The Applicant did not ask for the interim assistance order, but the SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL might of recognized that the Applicant health and life was at risk, because he was being denied medical services as well;

   ii.        The Applicant has been living at ST. SIMON’S HOMELESS SHELTER for at least one month without any support from ONTARIO-WORKS (that is no social benefits funding of any kind). This contradicts the statement in question;

 iii.        Mr.  Blessing Anyanwu (Director) personally requested of the Applicant to return back to HOMELESS SHELTER located at 2500 Cawthra Road after Mr. Harry Boom unlawfully evicted the Applicant without reasonable EVICTION NOTICE or lawful CAUSE;

 iv.        Mr Blair McCreadie, a lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY was acting in contravention of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT in his false assertions in his submission (at PARA[8]). The PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT states the following;

“Relationship to the Administration of Justice

4.01 The Lawyer as Advocate

(2) When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall

(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 statue 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,

(h) deliberately refrain from informing the tribunal of any binding authority that at the lawyer considers to be directly on point and that has not been mentioned by an opponent,

(I) dissuade a witness from giving evidence or advise a witness to be absent,

(j) knowingly permit a witness or party to be presented in a false or misleading way or to impersonate another,

(K) needlessly abuse, hector, or harass a witness,...”

Pursuant to the THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA and Harry Boom;

“The Defendants, The Governing Council of The Salvation Army in Canada {…} and Harry Boom (“Mr. Boom”), deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Statement of Claim.”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E”

 

[29] The Applicant made a HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT, his 1^st HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT  concerning his  BELOVED daughter (Asha Hill), whom he has full custody:  On or about July 11, 2011 Mr. Paul Richards for the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, articulates as follows in his response for HRTO complaint concerning accessing PEEL REGIONAL HOMELESS SHELTER for the Applicant’s beloved daughter and himself;

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

Pursuant to the THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA and Harry Boom;

“The Defendants, The Governing Council of The Salvation Army in Canada {…} and Harry Boom (“Mr. Boom”), deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Statement of Claim.”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E”

 

[30]   The Applicant reasonable believe the following;

            i.        There was no  HRTO FILE NUMBER for Wayne Ferron’s  1^st HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT  concerning him  and his beloved daughter  Asha Hill for whom he has full custody, accessing PEEL REGIONAL HOMELESS SHELTER;

           ii.        There was no official HRTO’s NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS or NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER  Wayne Ferron’s  1^st HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT  concerning him  and his  beloved daughter  Asha Hill for whom he have full custody, accessing PEEL REGIONAL HOMELESS SHELTER.

Pursuant to the THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA and Harry Boom;

“The Defendants, The Governing Council of The Salvation Army in Canada {…} and Harry Boom (“Mr. Boom”), deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Statement of Claim.”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E”

 

 [31]   The aforesaid, establish a foundation of truthful facts, honour, honesty, integrity, and respect for the RULE OF LAW/HUMAN DIGNITY in showing some empathy for the worth of human beings and human children or the Applicant’s children.

                                       

SHORT ESSENTIAL FACTS:

[32]   The Applicant’s civil matter CV 12-71600 has never received a FINAL ORDER for CV 12-71600, nor HAS IT BEEN APPEALED, while about half the RESPONDENTS for the same matter has failed to respond despite being served the STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV 12-71600); nor has the same civil matter in question ever been appealed, the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE has failed to disclose a CV 12-71600 FINAL ORDER, the RESPONDENTS has failed to disclose a CV 12-71600 FINAL ORDER, and  Ms. Kathrine Kirkpatrick the lawyer for York Region Police Services and the Applicant’s lawyer for CV 13-1060 has failed to disclose a CV 12-71600 FINAL ORDER; furthermore, all the above failure to produce a final order for CV 12-71600 occurred after a formal REQUSITION  to disclose the same final order by the Applicant. They all fail to respond and failed to disclosed and serve the FINAL ORDER FOR CV 12-71600.

 

[33]   CV 13-1060 is a separate and distinct application filed by Ms Kathrine Kirkpatrick(employee of BLG) while acting as legal counsel for YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE byway of legal fraud. CV 13-1060 was appealed to COURT OF APPEAL for ONTARIO byway of leave and filed under the motion number M42812. Which was Appeal to the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA under file number SCC 35821, while it would seem she was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[34]   Ms. Katharine Kirkpatrick, has acted as legal counsel in the past for a none-legal entity whom was acting in the capacity of a YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE OFFICER, but was not listed in the system as such. In addition the false none-legal entity went by the manicure B. Hird when misleading and swearing a false POSITIVE OATH before a Honourable Justice of the Peace, and maliciously procured Information 07-02500 while under oath, and acting within the capacity of possessing personal knowledge of allegation in the same information 07-02550, while securing the same voidable information 07-02500 with a false signature from a mislead Judicial Officer who was engaged in a judicial function.  Ms Katharine Kirkpatrick, secured monies for the aforementioned none-legal entity B. Hird before a Honourable Judge in the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(central west)-CIVIL, while it would seem she was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[35]   Date of the serving of ONTARIO WORKS EVICTION NOTICE(Nichole Arbour/Rudo Chiyangwa), the 15 August 2011, and Wayne Ferron had until the 22 August 2011 to leave THE REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER forthwith while it would seem they were not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E”

 

[36]   The Applicant (Wayne Ferron) and Mr. Harry Boom’s time interval of contact was [11 August 2011 to 01 October 2011] directly and vicariously.

 

[37]   The INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER for SOCIAL TRIBUNAL FILE.: 1106-04904 was enforceable or fully active in  the time interval [01 June 2011 to 30 November 2011].

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E”

 

[38]   HRTO FILE NUMBER.: 2012-12585-I occurrence is in the time interval [01 September 2012 to present], ongoing suffering because of delay has been the cross I have to carry.

 

[39]   The Applicant’s (Wayne Ferron) incident with Mr. Harry Boom is in the time interval [08 September 2011 to 16 September 2011].

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E”

 

[40]   The Applicant’s (Wayne Ferron’s) incident with Mr. BLESSING ANYANWU, is in the time interval [01 September 2012 to 05 September 2012].

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “D & E”

 

[41]   In the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY’ S initial response (no response from the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL), Mr. BLESSING ANYANWU, ADMITTED TO REPRISAL and denial of goods and services with a justification of the same REPRISAL against Wayne Ferron the Applicant, in an EMAIL to the Lawyers of the Salvation Army, which runs contrary to the policy on SHELTER STANDERS, Ontario HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, and the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, while it would seem he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “D & E”

 

[42]   Initially, the RESPONDENTS seem to try to paint a false picture of the PEEL REGIONAL HOMELESS SHELTER’s, care, control, total responsibility, and liability being given or delegated to the GOVERNING COUNSEL OF SALVATION ARMY for the same homeless shelter, the Applicant had to prove in his first filed legal documents that this was not the case, while it would seem not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[43]   John Gescher (john.gescher@peelregion.ca), the original lawyer for the REGION MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, failed to respond or reply to the Application(2012-12585-I), and was infact actively blocking or filtering the Applicant’s HRTO 2012-12585-I, LEGAL services byway of email, and causing them to be returned, while it would seem he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[44]   The REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, did not make a reasonable legal reply or OFFICIAL RESPONSE until the year 2015, even though HRTO 2012-12585 the Applicant filed with the HRTO-REGISTRAR in September 2012, even though the respondents were being granted a request for delay or deferral without the service of a NOTICE OF INTENSION TO DEFER, and without a response from the REGIONAL MUNICIPLE OF PEEL, while it would seem they were not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[45]    Blair Maccredie (blair.mccreadie@dentons.com), lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, in his last RESPONSE, admitted to Mr. Harry Boom discharging or evicting Wayne Ferron(Applicant) without written articulated notice in his submissions, without reasonable notice, and for the unlawful justification, of no ONTARIO WORKS FINANCIAL SUPPORT, which blatantly contradicts,  and unlawfully disobeyed the SOCIAL TRIBUNAL INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER (FILE.: 1106-04904) , that was in full force(Section 3.1 C.C.C.) at the time in question, in contravention Section 131 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, while it would seem they were not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E”

 

 

[46]   THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL acting in conjunction with it’s business subordinate THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, contravene or assisted in contravening Section 127(1), Section 22.1, and Section 22.2 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA when INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER: 1106-04904 was in full force in accordance with Section 3.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE of CANADA, while it would seem that both the RESPONDENTS were not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E”

 

[47]   THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL acting in conjunction with it’s business subordinate THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, contravene or assisted in contravening Section 322(1), 334, 380(1), 22.1, and 22.2 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA byway of not returning the $10.00 CANADA POST MONEY ORDER(Serial No.: 11 466 978 57 ), and the $5.00 personal check payment for services not rendered or responded to, after the Applicant exercised his “colour of right” over the same quantum of money on many occasion, and the INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER: 1106-04904 was in full force in accordance with Section 3.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE of CANADA, while it would seem that both the RESPONDENTS were not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E” AND FINAL-AMENDED-AMENDED HRTO 2012-12585-I

 

[48]   Mr. Blair MacCredie (blair.mccreadie@dentons.com), lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, contravene Section 8. of the ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, while it would seem that he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E” AND FINAL-AMENDED-AMENDED HRTO 2012-12585-I

 

[49]   Mr. Blair MacCredie (blair.mccreadie@dentons.com), lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, contravene Article 4.01 of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT, while it would seem that he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E” AND FINAL-AMENDED-AMENDED HRTO 2012-12585-I

 

[50]   Mr. Blair MacCredie (blair.mccreadie@dentons.com), and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, contravene THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY’S OWN POLICY,  MANIFESTO, CODE OF CONDUCT,  the HOLY BIBLE, and JESUS’S teachings, while it would seem that they were not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E” AND FINAL-AMENDED-AMENDED HRTO 2012-12585-I

 

[51]   Blair MacCredie (blair.mccreadie@dentons.com), lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY,  falsely accused the Applicant (Wayne Ferron)  of “MISREPRESENTION to the TRIBUNAL” in contravention of Article 4.01 of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT, without the disclosure of the FINAL ORDER CV 12-71600 to prove there allegations, even after being formally requested to do so by the Applicant; Mr. Blair MacCredie (blair.mccreadie@dentons.com), lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, while it would seem that he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E” AND FINAL-AMENDED-AMENDED HRTO 2012-12585-I

 

[52]   NO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER was served nor filed. I have requested a copy if one exist, but so far there is no proof of the existence of one.

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E” AND FINAL-AMENDED-AMENDED HRTO 2012-12585-I

 

[53]   HRTO 2012-12585-I was DEFERED or DELAYED on 13 September 2013, at the request of the respondents a full response.

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX “E” AND FINAL-AMENDED-AMENDED HRTO 2012-12585-I

 

[54]   APPLICANT filed RETURN TO MOTION OR APPLICATION HRTO 2012-12585-I on or about 06 March 2015.

 

[55]   The SALVATION ARMY and ONTARIO-WORK, for the second time ASPER the IPC directions, I made a request

for personal information collected or maintained at PEEL REGION

RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS (“THE HEAD”), in addition

to the $5.00 search fee being paid inclusive in the $10.00 Canada

-Post money order being sent to PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL

EMERGENCY SHELTERS (“THE HEAD”). The CANADA POST

MONEY ORDER contain the following information:

CHECK SERIAL NO.: 11 466 978 57

SECURITY CODE.: 697 965 794

OFFICE NO.: 102 205

ONTARIO-WORKS (“THE HEAD”) at PEEL REGION

RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF TH SALVATION, failed to respond, and complete the

Aforementioned information request for personal information, and also failed to return the $5.00 search fee in contravention of Section. 334, 322(1), 22.1, 22.2 and 380(1) the Criminal Code of Canada.

 

[56]   REQUISTION FOR DISCLOUSER…(2012-12585-I ET AL) was filed on or about March 9, 2015.

[57]   The IPC APPEAL FOR “DEEM REFUSE” REQUISTION FOR DISCLOUSER…(2012-12585-I ET AL), was on or about May 9, 2015, and again on May 14, 2015.

 

[58]   The CASE ASSESSMENT DIRECTION (2012-12585-i) was received on 29 May 2015.

 

[59]   The Conformation Letter for the Applicant’s REQUEST FOR INTERIM REMEDY (2012-12585-i), was received on May 21, 2015.

 

[60]   The Applicant, did not know how to REACTIVATE, until AN APPLICATION NOTICE, a REPLACEMENT EMAIL ON MAY 13, 2015, which contained a reprinted January 9, 2015 HRTO letter. The January 9, 2015 letter gave directions on how to reactivate a deferred Application.

 

[61]   The Applicant was notified or directed to reactivate HRTO 2012-12585-I on or about the 9 January 2015; however, he did not know about Jan 9, 2015 directions. He had medical problems that need immediate attention, and still does! HRTO-TRIBUNAL has been notified of the Applicant’s medical issues.

 

[62]   A very large and significant number of the respondents in CIVIL MATTER CV 12-71600 has refused or failed to respond, even though they were served the STATEMENT OF CLAIM CV 12-71600.

 

[63]   Requisitions to RESPONDENTS and other related entities such as; Ms. K. Kirkpatrick, and the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE-REGISTRAR, to disclose the final order for CV 12-71600 (Applicant’s Civil Matter.) All of the aforementioned entities has refused or failed to do so or even respond.

 

[64]   BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(“BLG”) lawyer or employee Kathrine Kirkpatrick, fraudulently procured a VEXACIOUS ORDER (CV 13-1060) for civil matter CV 13-1060 in contravention of Section 137, 22.1, 22.2 & 131 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, with false evidence and misleading methods while before the Honorable Justice Andrea. Not only did the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR failed or refuse to schedule MOTION FOR DIRECTION(C56817) to remedy missing exhibits from file C56817, determine status of incomplete TRANSCRIPS(C56817), and remedy MS. Deborah Krick’s(Assistance Attorney General), improper removal of court file C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS without a Court Order, lawful cause or reasonable justification.

 

[65]   Furthermore, the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR failed or refuse to schedule MOTION FOR DIRECTION(C56817) to remedy missing exhibits from file C56817, determine status of incomplete TRANSCRIPS(C56817), and remedy MS. Krick improper removal of court file C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS without a court order. On the 13^th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Krick whom has carriage, and control of matter M42322, admitted  in open court to having possession of COURT OF APPEAL file C56817.

 

[66]   In addition to the Crown(Mrs. Krick) using the same VEXACIOUS ORDER(CV 13-1060), to defeat the course of justice(A NUMBER OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, in contravention of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, in contravention of her oath to the public, in contravention of the CROWN’S POLICY, in contravention of Section 4.01 of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT, and in contravention of Section 504, 138, 137 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA; in addition to actively defeating the federal jurisdictional principal  PARAMOUNTCY or using PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION to defeat FEDERAL LEGISLATION (challenging the CCC, the RULE OF LAW, and the present jurisdictional legal structure), just to enable their clients continued unlawful immunity from the ENFORCEMENT & RULE OF LAW, byway of bypassing DUE PROCESS OF LAW with vicarious access to the PUBLIC PURSDE; while it would seem they were not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[67]   The SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE-CIVIL_REGISTRAR, has never notified the Applicant (Wayne Ferron) of a FINAL ORDER for CV 12-71600(civil matter), in contravention of Section 59.02 & 59.03 of the RULES OF CIVIL PRACTIC, Section 395. Of the FEDERAL COURT ACT.

 

[68]   As one direct example of the different treatment affecting his dignity, self-worth, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; the applicant was subjected to distinction byway of discrimination or unequal treatment at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO while trying to affect and perfect a LEAVE OF APPEAL HEARING(C56817 et al) for PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS; The allege accuse(Ms. Joanne Stuart), works out of the same Toronto Region Office of Ministry of Attorney General, as Ms. Deborah Krick whom was Crown’s council in the same Appeal, and was at least a Professional colleague of the allege accuse Ms. Joanne Stuart, in representing the Attorney General of Ontario within the same public institution; so there is a public appearance of the aforementioned action being improper or a blatant violation of judicial/Crown independence, and unfear regardless of whether this was or was-not the case. In addition, Applicant’s Public Evidence for his Private Prosecutions, where sanitized from the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS.

·         PLEASE SEE JUSTICE PEPALL AUGUST 13, 2013 ENDORSEMENT AND THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JURIANSZ SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 ENDORSEMENT

 

[69]    On or about June 30, 2013, the Applicant served and filed RESPONSE to RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS HRTO 2012-12585-I , which articulated the following in which Wayne Ferron requested “…January 2014 HEARING date…”;

 

“TAKE NOTICE: The Applicant has not been given an official response from the RESPONDENING parties, nor has he been properly served with official documents which has been filed with the TRIBUNAL, nor has he been instructed how, and where to serve the RESPONDENTS additional documents; 2500 Cawthra Employees has threaten to throw rece

The Applicant respectfully requntly filed legal documents by the Applicant into the garbage.

est 4 weeks to file a proper response, to documentations and argument of the RESPONDENTS, he was never properly served in accordance with civilized practice of law. Moreover, the Applicant notified all parties officially in accordance with the RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and Canadian civilized practice of law.

 

Again, the applicant intents to serve, and file medical information relevant to the matter before the TRIBUNAL; the Applicant is asking for a January 2014 HEARING date, so he can accumulate enough funds to  collect and serve his relevant medical information; I am a human being with human worth and would like to be treated in a dignified manner.

 

Pursuant to the documentation served on my person at the wrong address (neighborhood which I have no dealings with and does not speak English) and not in the proper mailbox which cannot contain the very large package after I notified and gave detailed instructions of a manner to serve my person to assure service is successful or received successfully with conformation.

 

The respondent's arguments contain many fallacies, mainly the cause and effect fallacy.  THE CIVIL STATEMENT OF CLAIM(let us call it EXHIBIT A), does not strengthen the respondent's argument but weakens it; pursuant to the Director(BLESSING ANYANWU) at PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, at 2500 Cawthra Rd., Mississauga, the Applicant was being denied service at the same homeless shelter, and due process for trying to affect his legal rights by way of EXHIBIT A;  the director(Mr. Blessings) was quite clear on the above point which he articulated many times and there was two other manager's at the said EMERGENCY SHELTER facility which witness this while they were being asked by the Applicant if their said action was legal, because of the revenge or punishment or vigilante justice dimension for exercising ones legal right . In addition to the intake clerks articulating in clear language that they were given instructions not to process or give me shelter at the same EMERGENCY SHELTER for unstated or written reasonable cause. After waiting outside for two days without food or water, the same EMERGENCY SHELTER called the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE (Officer 3424, 3470)  to have THE APPLICANT  removed from public property across the street from the same shelter, which they made a determination that they could not reasonable do what was being requested of them.

 

THE APPLICANT will state the functional PREMISES for the respondents here again. The respondents in their defense must show that the premises or impossible to be true or the arguments supporting the Applicant's PREMISES  contain logical or legal fallacies which prevents the Applicant from reaching the conclusion he is trying to respectfully submit or articulate before the TRIBUNAL.”

 

[70] On or about July 10, 2013, the Applicant served and filed REQUISITION FOR EXTENSION OF RESPONSE TIME HRTO 2012-12585-I , which articulated the following in which Wayne Ferron requested “…January 2014 HEARING date…”;

“…Again, the applicant intents to serve, and file medical information

rellevant to the matter before the TRIBUNAL;

the Applicant is asking for December 2013 date for the HEARING

or a January 2014 HEARING date

{…}

the Applicant was being denied service at the same homeless shelter and du process for trying to affect his legal rights byway of EXHIBIT A; the director(Mr Blessings) was quite clear on the above point which he articulated many times and there was two other manager's at the said EMERGENCY SHELTER facility which witness this while they were being asked by the Applicant if their said action was legal, because of the…”

 

 

[71] On or about May 7, 2013, the Applicant served and filed NOTICE OF INTENSIONS HRTO 2012-12585-I , which articulated the following in which Wayne Ferron requested “…January 2014 HEARING date…”;

“…Applicant is asking for December 2013 date for the HEARING

or a January 2014 HEARING date, so he can accumulate enough funds to collect and serve his relevant medical information; I am a

human being with human worth and would like to be treated in a dignified manner…”

 

 

[72] NO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER was served nor filed. The Applicant have requested a copy, if one exist, but so far there is no proof of the existence of one nor even one response to the same request.

 

[73] Pursuant to Blair McCreadie, a lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, in his submission(at para[20]) for ( HRTO 2012-12585-I), asserts the following on fairness and equity;

“20. ...one of the fundamental goals of the administration of the human rights system in Ontario is to “promote the fair, just and expeditious resolution of disputes” [RULE A3.1]. We further submit that it is a relevant factor mitigating against reactivation and in favour of dismissal.”

 

A3 INTERPRETATION

A3.1 The rules and procedures of the tribunal shall be liberally and purposively interpreted and applied to:

 

(a) promote the fair, just and expeditious resolution of disputes,

(b) allow parties to participate effectively in the process, whether or not they have a representative,

(c) ensure that procedures, orders and directions are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding.”

 

[74] Pursuant to Gurjit Singh Brar, a lawyer for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, in submission(at para[15, 17]) for ( HRTO 2012-12585-I), asserts the following on fairness and equity;

“15. pursuant to s. 40 of the Human Rights Code(the “Code”), the Tribunal has the authority to dispose of Applications made under Part iv “by adopting the procedures and practices provided for in its rules or otherwise available to the Tribunal which, in its opinion, offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the applications”.

{...}

17. The Tribunal has promulgated specific rules with respect to proceeding with Applications that have been deferred. According to Rule 7.5, where an applicant wishes to proceed with an Application that was deferred pending completion of another legal proceeding, a request must be made in accordance with Rule 14.3 and 14.4, no later than 60 days after completion of the other proceeding.”

 

“Disclosure of information to Commission

38.  Despite anything in theFreedomofInformationandProtectionofPrivacyAct, at the request of the Commission, the Tribunal shall disclose to the Commission copies of applications and responses filed with the Tribunal and may disclose to the Commission other documents in its custody or in its control. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Powers of Tribunal

39.  The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to exercise the powers conferred on it by or under this Act and to determine all questions of fact or law that arise in any application before it. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Disposition of applications

40.  The Tribunal shall dispose of applications made under this Part by adopting the procedures and practices provided for in its rules or otherwise available to the Tribunal which, in its opinion, offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the applications. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.”

 

 

 

 

GOOD FATE:

[75] In the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY’ S initial response (no response from the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL), Mr. BLESSING ANYANWU, ADMITTED TO REPRISAL and denial of goods and services with a justification of the same REPRISAL against Wayne Ferron the Applicant, in an EMAIL to the Lawyers of the Salvation Army, which runs contrary to the policy on SHELTER STANDERS, Ontario HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, and the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, while it would seem he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[76] Initially, the RESPONDENTS seem to try to paint a false picture of the PEEL REGIONAL HOMELESS SHELTER’s, care, control, total responsibility, and liability being given or delegated to the GOVERNING COUNSEL OF SALVATION ARMY for the same homeless shelter, the Applicant had to prove in his first filed legal documents that this was not the case, while it would seem to not be acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[77] John Gescher (john.gescher@peelregion.ca), the original lawyer for the REGION MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, failed to respond or reply to the Application(2012-12585-I), and was infact actively blocking or filtering the Applicant’s HRTO 2012-12585-I, LEGAL services byway of email, and causing them to be returned, while it would seem he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[78] The REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, did not make a reasonable legal reply or OFFICIAL RESPONSE until the year 2015, even though HRTO 2012-12585-I filed the same matter with the HRTO-REGISTRAR in September 2012, even though the respondents were being granted a request for delay or deferral without the service of a NOTICE OF INTENSION TO DEFER and without a response from the REGIONAL MUNICIPLE OF PEEL, while it would seem they were not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[79]  Blair Maccredie (blair.mccreadie@dentons.com), lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, in his last RESPONSE, admitted to Mr. Harry Boom discharging or evicting Wayne Ferron(Applicant) without written articulated notice in his submissions, without reasonable notice, and for the unlawful justification, of none ONTARIO WORKS FINANCIAL SUPPORT, which blatantly contradicts,  and unlawfully disobeyed the SOCIAL TRIBUNAL INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER (FILE.: 1106-04904), that was in full force at the time in question(according to Section 3.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA), in contravention Section 22.1 & 127(1) of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, while it would seem they were not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[80] Mr. Blair MacCredie (blair.mccreadie@dentons.com), lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, contravene Section 27(1) of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, while it would seem that he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[81] Mr. Blair MacCredie (blair.mccreadie@dentons.com), lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, contravene Section 22.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, while it would seem that he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[82] Mr. Blair MacCredie (blair.mccreadie@dentons.com), lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, contravene Section 8. of the ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, while it would seem that he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[83] Mr. Blair MacCredie (blair.mccreadie@dentons.com), lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, contravene Section 4.01 of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT, while it would seem that he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[84] Mr. Blair MacCredie (blair.mccreadie@dentons.com), lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, contravene  the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY’S OWN POLICY,  MANIFESTO, CODE OF CONDUCT,  the HOLY BIBLE, and JESUS’S teachings, while it would seem that he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[85] Blair Maccredie (blair.mccreadie@dentons.com), lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY,  falsely accused the Applicant (Wayne Ferron)  of “MISREPRESENTION to the TRIBUNAL” in contravention of Article 4.01 of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT, without the disclosure of the FINAL ORDER CV 12-71600 to prove there allegations, even after being formally requested to do so by the Applicant; while it would seem that he was not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

 

[86] On or about January 15, 2015, the Applicant sent the HRTO-REGISTRAR the following email;

“ATT Mr. Richard Hennessy YOUR ARE SLOWLY KILLING ME-NEW COMPLAINT-URGENT EMERGENCY TO OBTAIN MEDICATION

Inbox

x

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>	Jan 15
to HRTO-Registrar, newswatch, Want, editor.indiati., tarun.grover, washingtonbure., Inyt, hollywoodbureau, isdr, america, ajam.community, gleanerna, feedback, editorial, Julie, cbcnewsottawa, freedom4canada., city, LawCommission, publicenquiries, mail, info, registrar

My life, death, or damage to my health is in the hands of THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL, in accordance with the policy and processing procedure of ONTARIO WORKS  and the  FEDERAL SOCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL(EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE).

tHE OTHER DAY, I SPOKE TO the FEDERAL SOCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL,  to confirm
that my employment insurance was received. I was told that an appeal
takes 6 weeks to process, and I will be contacted then to confirm the
receipt of my application

On January 16, 2015 I SPOKE TO the FEDERAL SOCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL, to confirm that my employment insurance was received. I was told that an appeal takes 6 weeks to process, and I will be contacted then to confirm the
receipt of my application. Urgency would be ineffective here despite me labelling the matter as URGENT.

So, it would seem that all the responsibility for saving my life and restoring my life back to normal with normal access to social services without reprisals is the HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL and it alone caries the aforesaid burden.

I tried getting some Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid or ASA)  to thin my blood and reduce the chances of a stroke or heart attack, but dispensing this type of over the counter drug is not proper. I have no money because of the restriction of my person to access public goods and services; negative $150.00 is what I have in my Bank account.

But, HARM (GOVERNEMENT program for dispensing drugs to drug addicts by diminishing the role or dependency on drug dealers. The Government is in essence the new drug dealer), HARM-shops dispense drugs every day to make drug addicts high or feel nice while curving there appetite for Crack Cocaine or other drugs. I learned this fact from drug addicts themselves, one of whom had a $1400.00 habit per month for which Doctors were supply him with all the drugs he needed, but he wanted more so he was complaining. I investigate, no matter where I am forced to live.

Contrastly, I cannot get an  Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid or ASA) TO tHin my blood and save my life or prevent a stroke or organ damage. Not to mention,
to fill a $60.00 proscription to save my life and maintain my health and be a healthy an productive TAX PAYING human being.

Am not a human being, how far we have fallen?

4 Attachments

Preview attachment ei-2nd- letter to the Umpire for motion record.pdf

 

 

Preview attachment OW-DIRECTIVE-1101.pdf

 

 

Preview attachment AMENDED-EI-EXHIBIT X -FEDERAL SOCIAL TRIBUNAL APPEAL-GENERAL.pdf

 

 

Preview attachment Bundle 29.pdf

 

 

“

[87] APPLICANT filed RETURN TO MOTION OR APPLICATION HRTO 2012-12585-I on or about 06 March 2015.

“TAKE NOTICE: that a Motion will be made before a single JuSTICE or the TRIBUNAL to RETURN back to  APPLICATION(2012-12585-I), in addition to an oral submission with the calling of witnesses to assist the court, for HRTO FILE NO.: 2012-12585-I,

 

on a date and on a time to be chosen by the HUMAN RIGHTS-REGISTRAR, at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14th floor Toronto, ON. The motion is to be heard orally.

TAKE NOTICE: The HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION has establish a very effective barrier to entry in accessing relevant information disclosure for;  HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I; to know the same stated cases and make informed decisions concerning the same cases, in accordance with NATURAL JUSTICE  and PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.

THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION is quite aware that all my rights to PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES have been taken away or blocked, and as a direct result; I have no income. It is impossible for me to purchase a $0.50 stamp, so how could I possible the minimum cost of $5.00 application fee plus the search fee, when I am IMPECUNIOUS or INSOLVENT?”

 

 

 

 

JOHN GESCHER (BLOCKING LAWFUL SERVICE):

[88] NO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER was served nor filed. I have requested a copy if one exist, but so far there is no proof of the existence of one.

PLEASE SEE June 15, 2015 INTERIM DECISION 2012-12585-I, concerning an order for the disclosure or access to the NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER 2012-12585-I

 

[89] HRTO 2012-12585-I was DEFERED or DELAYED on 13 September 2013, at the request of the respondents

 

[90] The AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON AND EXHIBIT HOME_A…(2012-12585-I ET AL) AND form 1-amenment-2013 hrto 1544, was filed on or about November 12, 2014.

John Gescher, lawyer for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, refused and rejected the lawful and HRTO directed email legal service in the following way;

“    john.gescher@peelregion.ca

 

Technical details of permanent failure:

Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain peelregion.ca by mx2.peelregion.ca. [198.96.114.162].

 

The error that the other server returned was:

550 #5.1.0 Address rejected.

”

“RE: AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION, 2012-12585-I/2013-HRTO 1544 Inbox x   Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com> 12/11/14       to john.gescher DEAR RESPONDENTS AND HRTO; HERE IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION.   john.gescher@peelregion.ca.    <blair.mccreadie@dentons.com> IS NOT A VIABLE EMAIL ADDRESS; IT LOOKS MORE LIKE A TWITTER ACCOUNT OR AT LEAST IS IN THAT FORM.   HRTO-REGISTRAR, PLEASE GET MR. BLAIR MCCREADIE TO RECTIFY THE MATTER. THANK YOU. Blair McCreadie (LSUC NO. 43985S) DENTONS CANADA LLP 77 King St West SUITE 400 , Toronto, ON, M5K 0A1 TD NORTH TOWER, TORONTO-DOMINION CENTRE 416 863 4532                   TANYA GALLOWAY LEGAL ASSISTANT (TO ANN C. DINNERT AND JOHN H. GESCHER) THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL 10 Peel Centre Drive, Suite A and B, Brampton, ON L6T 4B9 Phone: 905-791-7800 EXT 4586 • Toll-free: 1-888-919-7800 • 2 Attachments Preview attachment amenment-application-2013 HRTO 1544.pdf   Preview attachment form 1-amenment-2013 hrto 1544.pdf     Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com> 12/11/14       to me Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:       john.gescher@peelregion.ca   Technical details of permanent failure: Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain peelregion.ca by mx2.peelregion.ca. [198.96.114.162].   The error that the other server returned was: 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected.   ----- Original message -----   {...} MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.5.67 with SMTP id q3mr11428503laq.73.1418325877700; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:24:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.3.74 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:24:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:24:35 -0500 Message-ID: <CAOBLrfOas5FZLs51LS+dMVDLPZvg0rFuW4V13jdJe61hsYZY1Q@mail.gmail.com> Subject: RE: AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION, 2012-12585-I/2013-HRTO 1544 From: Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com> To: john.gescher@peelregion.ca Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=089e013d173421bd5c0509f5bab9   DEAR RESPONDENTS AND HRTO; HERE IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION. john.gescher@peelregion.ca.  <blair.mccreadie@dentons.com>   *IS NOT A VIABLE EMAIL ADDRESS; IT LOOKS MORE LIKE A TWITTER ACCOUNT OR AT LEAST IS IN THAT FORM. HRTO-REGISTRAR, PLEASE GET MR. BLAIR MCCREADIE TO RECTIFY THE MATTER. THANK YOU*.   *Blair McCreadie* (LSUC NO. 43985S) *DENTONS CANADA LLP* 77 King St West SUITE 400 , Toronto, ON, M5K 0A1 TD NORTH TOWER, TORONTO-DOMINION CENTRE 416 863 4532   *TANYA GALLOWAY* *LEGAL ASSISTANT (TO ANN C. DINNERT AND JOHN H. GESCHER)* *THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL*”

 

[91] The AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON AND EXHIBIT HOME_A…(2012-12585-I ET AL) AND CHANGE OF ADDRESS, was filed on or about December 12, 2014.

John Gescher, lawyer for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, refused and rejected the lawful and HRTO directed email legal service in the following way;

“Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

 

    john.gescher@peelregion.ca

 

Technical details of permanent failure:

Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain peelregion.ca by mx2.peelregion.ca. [198.96.114.162].

 

The error that the other server returned was:

550 #5.1.0 Address rejected.”

 

RE: change of address, 2012-12585-I/2013-HRTO 1544

Inbox

x

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>	12/12/14
to hrto.registrar, john.gescher, blair.mccreadie, registry-greffe, LawCommission, publicenquiries, mail

Dear recipients,

 

here is a change of address.

 

               

My beloved daughter at Seneca College has until December 1, 2014 to pay residence fees; I cannot help her! Your unreasonable delay in  2012-12585-I/2013-HRTO 1544 has caused or contributed to this problem.  In short your delay has put my childrens and my life, security, and pursuit of happiness in jeopardy.

 

Thank You

Attachments area

Preview attachment good-SCC-AFFIDAVIT-EXHIBIT HOME_A-2013 HRTO.pdf

 

 

Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>	12/12/14
to me

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

 

    john.gescher@peelregion.ca

 

Technical details of permanent failure:

Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain peelregion.ca by mx2.peelregion.ca. [198.96.114.162].

 

The error that the other server returned was:

550 #5.1.0 Address rejected.

 

----- Original message -----

 

{...}

 

Subject: RE: change of address, 2012-12585-I/2013-HRTO 1544

From: Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

To: hrto.registrar@ontario.ca, john.gescher@peelregion.ca,

       blair.mccreadie@dentons.com, registry-greffe@scc-csc.ca,

       LawCommission@lco-cdo.org, publicenquiries@ccla.org, mail@ccla.org

Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=001a11c32e342cd646050a0a9bdb

 

Dear recipients,

here is a change of address.

 

My beloved daughter at Seneca College has until December 1, 2014 to pay

residence fees; I cannot help her! Your unreasonable delay in

2012-12585-I/2013-HRTO 1544 has caused or contributed to this problem.  In

short your delay has put my childrens and my life, security, and pursuit of

happiness in jeopardy.

Thank You

“

 

[92] The RECQUISITION TO PEEL-HRTO-2012-12585-I,  AND CHANGE OF ADDRESS, amenment-application-2013 HRTO 1544, Preview attachment good-SCC-AFFIDAVIT-EXHIBIT HOME_A-2013 HRTO, form 1-amenment-2013 hrto 1544, and AMENDED-2012-12585-I-Housing - Form 1 and 1B_0 (1)  was filed on or about December 12, 2014.

John Gescher, lawyer for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, refused and rejected the lawful and HRTO directed email legal service in the following way;

“Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

 

    john.gescher@peelregion.ca

 

Technical details of permanent failure:

Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain peelregion.ca by mx2.peelregion.ca. [198.96.114.162].

 

The error that the other server returned was:

550 #5.1.0 Address rejected.”

RE: CV 12-0716-00-MR. JOHN H. GESCHER is not receiving document for PEEL REGION... matter; PLEASE FORWARD TO JOHN GESCHER OR ANN C. DINNERT OR TANYA GALLOWAY

Inbox

x

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>	12/23/14
to john.gescher, David.Miller, Gail.Williams

PLEASE FORWARD TO THE FOLLOWING

 

TANYA GALLOWAY

LEGAL ASSISTANT (TO ANN C. DINNERT AND JOHN H. GESCHER)

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL

10 Peel Centre Drive, Suite A and B,

Brampton, ON L6T 4B9

Phone: 905-791-7800 EXT 4586 •

Toll-free: 1-888-919-7800 •

E-mail:

Info@Peelregion.ca

john.gescher@peelregion.ca

 

ONTARIO WORKS COUNSELORS

David.Miller@peelregion.ca

Gail.Williams@peelregion.ca

 

4 Attachments

Preview attachment RECQUISITION TO PEEL-HRTO-2012-12585-I.pdf

 

Preview attachment amenment-application-2013 HRTO 1544.pdf

 

Preview attachment good-SCC-AFFIDAVIT-EXHIBIT HOME_A-2013 HRTO.pdf

 

Preview attachment 2-form 1-amenment-2013 hrto 1544.pdf

 

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>	12/23/14
to David.Miller, Gail.Williams

Attachments area

Preview attachment AMENDED-2012-12585-I-Housing - Form 1 and 1B_0 (1).pdf

 

Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>	12/23/14
to me

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

 

    john.gescher@peelregion.ca

 

Technical details of permanent failure:

Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain peelregion.ca by mx2.peelregion.ca. [198.96.114.162].

 

The error that the other server returned was:

550 #5.1.0 Address rejected.

 

----- Original message -----

{...}

Subject: RE: CV 12-0716-00-MR. JOHN H. GESCHER is not receiving document for

PEEL REGION... matter; PLEASE FORWARD TO JOHN GESCHER OR ANN C. DINNERT OR

TANYA GALLOWAY

From: Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

To: john.gescher@peelregion.ca, David.Miller@peelregion.ca,

       Gail.Williams@peelregion.ca

Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=001a11c2a5c4aa3b1a050adfa6b3

 

PLEASE FORWARD TO THE FOLLOWING

TANYA GALLOWAY

LEGAL ASSISTANT (TO ANN C. DINNERT AND JOHN H. GESCHER)

*THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL*

10 Peel Centre Drive, Suite A and B,

Brampton, ON L6T 4B9

Phone: 905-791-7800 EXT 4586 •

Toll-free: 1-888-919-7800 •

E-mail:

Info@Peelregion.ca

*john.gescher@peelregion.ca <john.gescher@peelregion.ca>*

 

ONTARIO WORKS COUNSELORS

 

David.Miller@peelregion.ca

   Gail.Williams@peelregion.ca

“

 

[93] The RECQUISITION TO PEEL-HRTO-2012-12585-I, amenment-application-2013 HRTO 1544, AFFIDAVIT-EXHIBIT HOME_A-2013 HRTO, and form 1-amenment-2013 hrto 1544, was filed on or about December 23, 2014.

John Gescher, lawyer for the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, refused and rejected the lawful and HRTO directed email legal service in the following way;

“

 

Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>	12/23/14
to me

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

 

    john.gescher@peelregion.ca

 

Technical details of permanent failure:

Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain peelregion.ca by mx2.peelregion.ca. [198.96.114.162].

 

The error that the other server returned was:

550 #5.1.0 Address rejected..”

 

“RE: CV 12-0716-00-MR. JOHN H. GESCHER is not receiving document for PEEL REGION… matter; PLEASE FORWARD TO JOHN GESCHER OR ANN C. DINNERT OR TANYA GALLOWAY

Inbox

x

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>	12/23/14
to john.gescher, David.Miller, Gail.Williams

PLEASE FORWARD TO THE FOLLOWING

 

TANYA GALLOWAY

LEGAL ASSISTANT (TO ANN C. DINNERT AND JOHN H. GESCHER)

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL

10 Peel Centre Drive, Suite A and B,

Brampton, ON L6T 4B9

Phone: 905-791-7800 EXT 4586 •

Toll-free: 1-888-919-7800 •

E-mail:

Info@Peelregion.ca

john.gescher@peelregion.ca

 

ONTARIO WORKS COUNSELORS

David.Miller@peelregion.ca

Gail.Williams@peelregion.ca

 

4 Attachments

Preview attachment RECQUISITION TO PEEL-HRTO-2012-12585-I.pdf

 

Preview attachment amenment-application-2013 HRTO 1544.pdf

 

Preview attachment good-SCC-AFFIDAVIT-EXHIBIT HOME_A-2013 HRTO.pdf

 

Preview attachment 2-form 1-amenment-2013 hrto 1544.pdf

 

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>	12/23/14
to David.Miller, Gail.Williams

Attachments area

Preview attachment AMENDED-2012-12585-I-Housing -–Form 1 and 1B_0 (1).pdf

 

Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>	12/23/14
to me

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

 

 ohn.gescher@peelregion.ca

 

Technical details of permanent failure:

Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain peelregion.ca by mx2.peelregion.ca. [198.96.114.162].

 

The error that the other server returned was:

550 #5.1.0 Address rejected.

 

----- Original message -----

{...}

Subject: RE: CV 12-0716-00-MR. JOHN H. GESCHER is not receiving document for

PEEL REGION... matter; PLEASE FORWARD TO JOHN GESCHER OR ANN C. DINNERT OR

TANYA GALLOWAY

From: Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

To: john.gescher@peelregion.ca, David.Miller@peelregion.ca,

       Gail.Williams@peelregion.ca

Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=001a11c2a5c4aa3b1a050adfa6b3

 

PLEASE FORWARD TO THE FOLLOWING

TANYA GALLOWAY

LEGAL ASSISTANT (TO ANN C. DINNERT AND JOHN H. GESCHER)

*THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL*

10 Peel Centre Drive, Suite A and B,

Brampton, ON L6T 4B9

Phone: 905-791-7800 EXT 4586 •

Toll-free: 1-888-919-7800 •

E-mail:

Info@Peelregion.ca

*john.gescher@peelregion.ca <john.gescher@peelregion.ca>*

 

ONTARIO WORKS COUNSELORS

 

David.Miller@peelregion.ca

   Gail.Williams@peelregion.ca

"

 

 

 

 

[94]    With warm regards, the Applicant regret to inform the Honourable HRTO TRIBUNAL, that the RESPONDENTS has been deceiving/misleading the Honourable HRTO TRIBUNAL, the Adjudicator, the Applicant, and the PUBLIC at large concerning  HRTO 2012-12585-I  to defeat the course of justice; I for one feel deceived, and disgusted from being led astray at the expense of my beloved baby girls life , liberty, security and the pursuit of happiness.

 

 

 

 

 

NO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER 2012-12585-I:

[95]   Pursuant to FREEDOM AND INFORMATION COORDINATOR Susan Benger July 15, 2015 signed letter to the Applicant;

``...The HRTO did not issue a Notice of Intent to Defer with respect to 2012-12585-I. The HRTO did not issue a Notice of Intent to Defer  with respect to this application...``

 

·        PLEASE SEE  Susan Benger July 15, 2015 signed letter to the Applicant under APPENDIX ``A``

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO FINAL ORDER for CV 12-716:

[96] Pursuant to the Pauline Labelle (Supervisor)  and her subordinate Malanie Harvey,  a Civil-Registrar Clerk  on the 19^th of August, 2015 at about Wicket # 14 (K242) at or about  8:41am;

   v.        CV 12-0716 has not been stayed (see Para[5]  of Justice Andrea’s Vexative Order;

  vi.        No one has filed Justice Andrea’ Vexative Order CV 13-1060 to stay CV 12-716;

 vii.        There is no final order for CV 12-0716;

viii.        There is no existing orders or endorsements for CV 12-0716;

  ix.        There is no final order for CV 13-1060 AFTER SHE DID AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH IN FILE CV 13-1060. According to CIVIL REGISTRAR CLERK Pauline Labelle (Supervisor),  there was no time limit for a FINAL ORDER and the onus was upon the Applicant to ensure there was one.  Pauline Labelle (Supervisor)  and her subordinate Malanie Harvey  accepted for filing at the BRAMPTON SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, “AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON CV 12-0716” under the condition of a “ON EXPLICIT  INSTRUCTIONS  FORM “ which states the following; 

“…request that the attached documents be accepted for filing based on their instructions as a party/lawyer/agent/paralegal, or based on the explicit instructions of a lawyer or paralegal…”

 

 [97]   Pursuant to the CASE INFORMATION from the  PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL at SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-CIVIL REGISTRAR at or about 8:41 a.m., on  AUGUST 19, 2015 CONCERNING court information for CV 12-0716-00;

`` CV 12- 0716 status is active``

 

·        PLEASE SEE APPENDIX ``G`` FOR THE EVIDENCE

 

[98]   Pursuant to the CASE INFORMATION from the  PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL at SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-CIVIL REGISTRAR at or about 8:41 a.m., on  AUGUST 19, 2015 CONCERNING court information for CV 12-0716-00;

`` CV 12- 0716 ...Nov 25, 2013 Motion on Notice

 

``and CV 12- 0716 ...Dec 05,2012 Motion on Notice``

 

TAKE NOTICE: that no one attended these motions, yet the RESPONDENTS claimed to be “…in the process of resolving matter...”

 

·        PLEASE SEE APPENDIX ``G`` FOR THE EVIDENCE

 

[99]   Pursuant to the CASE INFORMATION from the  PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL at SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-CIVIL REGISTRAR at or about 8:41 a.m., on  AUGUST 19, 2015 CONCERNING court information for CV 12-0716-00;

 

`` No Order/Judgement Information found for selected Case.``

 

·        PLEASE SEE APPENDIX ``G`` FOR THE EVIDENCE

 

[100]   Pursuant to a before middle age Caucasian CLERK at SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-CIVIL REGISTRAR at wicket 20 at or about 8:30 a.m., on  July 22, 2015 whom check, and double checked court information or court file on CV 12-716;

``...There is no final order, and there is no endorsement  for CV 12- 716!``

 

 [101]   Pursuant to a the female CLERK at SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-CIVIL REGISTRAR at wicket 20 at or about 8:30 a.m., on  July 22, 2015 whom check and double checked court information on her computer terminal and or the court files on CV 12-716;

``...There is no FINAL ORDER for CV 12- 716 and there is no ENDORSEMENTS!``

 

[102]   Pursuant to the CASE INFORMATION from the  PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL at SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-CIVIL REGISTRAR at or about 10:30 a.m., on  July 22, 2015 CONCERNING court information for CV 12-716;

`` CV 12- 716 status is active``

 

·        PLEASE SEE APPENDIX ``C`` FOR THE EVIDENCE

 

[103]   Pursuant to the EVENT INFORMATION from the  PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL at SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-CIVIL REGISTRAR at or about 10:30 a.m., on  July 22, 2015 CONCERNING court information for CV 12-716;

`` CV 12- 716 ...Nov 25, 2013 Motion on Notice

 

``and CV 12- 716 ...Dec 05,2012 Motion on Notice``

 

TAKE NOTICE: that no one attended these motions, yet the RESPONDENTS claimed to be “…in the process of resolving matter...”

 

·        PLEASE SEE APPENDIX ``C`` FOR THE EVIDENCE

 

[104]   Pursuant to the EVENT  RESULT INFORMATION from the  PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL at SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-CIVIL REGISTRAR at or about 10:30 a.m., on  July 22, 2015 CONCERNING court information for CV 12-716;

`` No Order/Judgement Information found for selected Case.``

 

·        PLEASE SEE APPENDIX ``C`` FOR THE EVIDENCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO FINAL ORDER for CV 12-716:

[105]   Pursuant to the Madam Madugalla E. (CLERK-WICKET 11 OR 12), and her supervisor at SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-CIVIL REGISTRAR at or about 10:30 a.m., on  July 22, 2015 CONCERNING court information for CV 12-716;

Madam Madugalla E. supervisor could not find any ENDORSEMENT for CV 12-716 or any information concerning Motion On Notice CV 12-716, returnable on Nov 25, 2013 at 10:00 am.``

 

TAKE NOTICE: that none of the CLERKS nor myself or there supervisor was able to find a FINAL ORDER for CV 12-716 or any endorsement or period! Such a thing just does not exist!

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX ``B``, for certified copy of Cindy Brownley’ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE CV 12-716, and certified copy of BACK PAGE of only MOTION RECORD CV 12-716 for civil matter in question CV 12-716.

 

 

 

[106]   Pursuant to the Blessing Anyanwu (Director) from the  REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER at 2500 Cawthra Rd. Mississauga, at or about 12:07 p.m., on September 06, 2012 in his Email response to Kelly-Anne Salerno (Human Services Department Program Supervisor, Client & Community Access Division…), after the Applicant spent from September 1, 2012 to September 6, 2012 across the Cawthra Road without food, water, a bed, or bathroom facilities while the REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER had beds available and the same Shelter was not filled to capacity or being fully utilized;

`` Staff already informed him that he is restricted,  and cannot be admitted. He wanted to know why he is restricted. Staff referred him to management. Allison and I met with him in the lobby at about 10:30 AM.

 

I informed him that he cannot be re-admitted at this time due to his law suit against the Salvation Army and the Region of Peel {…}He said that we cannot hold this against him; this is against his human rights…``

 

·        PLEASE SEE APPENDIX ``D`` FOR EVIDENCE, THAT THE RESPONDENT KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HRTO 2012-12585-I IS ABOUT, ANT THE CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH HAS DIFFERENT TIME, LOCATION, ACTIONS, EVENT, TIME INTERVAL, AND CAUSE OF ACTION

 

TAKE NOTICE: that THE Applicant intend to challenge some of this evidence as false with respect to SHELTER RESTRICTION (does not exist-respondents should have no problem in disclosing documentation on restriction?), and “securing a bed…?”(Requisition was made for a list of homeless shelters to a intake clerk), applicant was refused the said list!

 

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX ``D``

 

 

 

LEGAL REASONS for RECONSIDERATION:

[107] TAKE NOTICE: That in accordance with CASE LAW, and the HRTO FAIR AND EQUAL process of HUMAN RIGHTS matter, there is supposed to be a NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER HRTO 2012-12585-I served on the relevant parties, before a matter is deferred.

 

[108] Pursuant to HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL’s CASE ASSESSMENT ORDER;

“[6] The issues to be addressed at the hearing are as follows:

 

a. Should the Tribunal waive the requirement in Rule 14.4 that a request to reactivate a deferred Application be filed no later than 60 days after the other proceeding has concluded?

 

b. Whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code because the substance of it has been appropriately dealt with in another legal proceeding, in this case the civil suit(s) commenced by the applicant?”

 

[109] It FELLOWS from the PREMISE and assumed assumptions  for a fair hearing on the issues above, that the legal issues before the honorable HRTO-TRIBUNAL are heavily reliant on the FINAL ORDER OF THE CIVIL MATTER (CV 12-716) and the  NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER HRTO 2012-12585-I, which is derived from the proper process of deferring a matter at HRTO in accordance with it’s rules or code. Yet, the Applicant, the public and the HRTO court are being denied these necessary pieces of EXIHIBITS to assist the honorable court in its just decisions in contravention of NATURAL JUSTICE and PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.

 

[110] Pursuant to Rule 7.4;

RULE 7.4

7.4. The Tribunal will not defer consideration of an Application without first giving all the parties, and any affected persons or organizations identified in the Application or Response, an opportunity to make submissions on the request for deferral.

 

 

[111] Pursuant to Rule 14;

RULE 14

DEFERRAL OF AN APPLICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL

14.1 The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative, at the request of an Applicant under Rule 7, or at the request of any party.

 

14.2 Where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an Application under Rule 14.1, it will first give the parties,

any identified trade union or occupational or

professional organization and any identified affected persons, notice of its intention to consider deferral of the Application and an opportunity to make submissions.

 

 

[112] Pursuant to Rule 7.2;

RULE 7.2

7.2. A request for deferral will only be considered by the Tribunal where the other legal proceeding does not fall within the scope of s. 34(11) of the Code.

 

 

[113] Pursuant to Section 34(11) of the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE;

Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c 210

Repealed

34  [Repealed 2002-62-17.]

 

[114] Pursuant Samuel v. Waterloo Regional District School Board;

“[2]               On December 15, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer under section 45 of the Code and Rule 14.2 of its Rules of Procedure, as it appeared that the applicant had filed a grievance dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. The Custodial and Maintenance Association was notified as an organization that might be affected by the Application.”

(Samuel v. Waterloo Regional District School Board, 2011 HRTO 498 (CanLII))

 

 

[115] Pursuant Oram v. Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada;

“[8]           A further Case Assessment Direction dated February 15, 2012 (“the February CAD”) was issued to the parties.  In it, the Tribunal stated that in the circumstances of the case, it seemed appropriate for the Tribunal to defer this proceeding until the Claims Adjudication Officer resolved the applicant’s dispute.  It noted that pursuant to Rule 14.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, where the Tribunal intends to defer, it is required to first give the parties notice of its intention to defer and give them an opportunity to make submissions. …”

 ( Oram v. Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada)

 

 

[116] Pursuant Chivers v. National Steel Car Ltd.;

“Deferral

[2]               The Application noted a pending grievance. On March 1, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer under Rule 14.2 of its Rules of Procedure, as it appears that the applicant had filed a grievance dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. The applicant’s Union (United Steelworkers Local 7135) was given notice of the application as an affected organization. The parties and the Union were invited to make written submissions on why the Application should, or should not be deferred.

{…}

 [4]               The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Code s.45; Rule 14.1). he initial consideration for the Tribunal in deciding whether or not to defer consideration of an Application is whether the same facts and issues are being raised before another decision-maker with the authority to deal with issues arising under the Code”

(Chivers v. National Steel Car Ltd.)

 

 

[117] Pursuant Laba v. Windsor (City);

“DEFERRAL  

[13]           Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application.  Under Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party.  Where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an application, it will first give the parties, any identified trade union or occupational or professional organization and any identified affected persons, notice of its intention to consider deferral and an opportunity to make submissions (Rule 14.2).

[14]           The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.  However, the Tribunal must also consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application. “

 

(Laba v. Windsor (City), 2009 HRTO 382)

 

 

[118] Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

NATURAL JUSTICE

HEAR THE OTHER SIDE(AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM):

“The rules of procedural fairness or natural justice are divided

 into two separate categories. the first category comprises the decision maker provide adequate opportunities for those affected to present their case and respond to the evidence and arguments being advanced by other participants or in the knowledge or possession of the decision maker. The Latin term for this is ”audi alteram partem,” though its admonition to hear or listen to the other side is {...} The second limb of the rules covers the requirement that decision makers be independent and unbiased. Here too, there is and underinclusive Latin term:

 “nemo judex in sua propria causa debet esse” - no one should be a judge in her or his own cause.”

(ADMINISTRATION LAW - David J. Mullan; page 232)

 

 

[119] NATURAL JUSTICE - TIME

Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

“One of the bedrock principle of natural justice or procedural fairness is that affected individuals have timely notice of what is at stake in sufficient detail to enable them to participate effectively in the decision making process. This principle is not only the basis of common law jurisprudence in this domain but it also is manifest in statutory provisions such as section 8 of the Ontario Statutory Powers Procedure Act. It provides:”

(ADMINISTRATION LAW - David J. Mullan; page 238)

 

 

[120]   On September 20, 2012, the HRTO- REGISTRAR was sent HUMAN RIGHTS MATTER HRTO 2012-12585-I, concerning the service at REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER.

 

 

[121] On April 12, 2013 THE GOVERNING COUNSEL OF THE SALVATION ARMY served and filed a letter seeking an extension of time to response to HRTO 2012-12585-I , ARTICULATED THE FOLLOWING;

“Attention: Richard Hennessy, Registrar

 

Dear Mr. hennessy:

 

Re: Wayne Ferron v. Salavation Army

HRTO File Number 2012-12585-I

 

I am in-house legal counsel for the above-named respondent.

 

The Salvation Army’s response is due on April12, 2013. I have been unable to obtain definitive instructions from my client in time to meet the above deadline. Kindly note that The Salvation Army is exploring the possibility of settling this matter.

In light of the above, I ask that the Tribunal provide The Salvation Army with a two week extension to provide it’s response.

(Legal Counsel, Elena Constantin, April 12, 2013 The Salvation Army Letter)

 

 

[122] The RESPONDENT  delayed or requested that the HRTO TRIBUNAL DISMISS or DEFER HRTO 2012-12585-I in accordance with Rule 14.1, which is presented below;

 

RULE 14

DEFERRAL OF AN APPLICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL

14.1 The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative, at the request of an Applicant under Rule 7, or at the request of any party.

 

[123] Pursuant to the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL;

 

“

1.   The Tribunal has promulgated specific rules with respect to proceeding with Applications that have been deferred. According to Rule 7.5, where an applicant wishes to proceed with an Application that was deferred pending completion of another legal proceeding, a request must be made in accordance with Rule 14.3 and 14.4, no later than 60 days after completion of the other proceeding.

{…}

2.   In our respectful submission, the applicant has not met the requirement of Rules 7.5, 14.3 and 14.4. The applicant’s civil action concluded on July 3, 2014 when the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed his application for leave to appeal.  The applicant’s request for reactivating the Application was made on March 21, 2015, greatly in excess of the 60 day time period. This, in our submission, is sufficient to dispose of the applicant’s request and dismiss the Application.

20.   But, in our submission, the Tribunal ought to consider the fact that on October 17, 2014 the applicant misrepresented the status of his civil proceeding…”

 

 

 

[124] Pursuant to the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY;

 

 

 

RULE 14

DEFERRAL OF AN APPLICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL

14.1 The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative, at the request of an Applicant under Rule 7, or at the request of any party.

 

 

[125] Pursuant Rule 7.5 does not apply because the RESPONDENTS REQUESTED THE DELAY OR DEFERIAL HRTO 2012-12585-I. But Rule 14.4 should be used , since the matter was deferred in accordance with Rule 14.1 at the request of the RESPONDENTS.

 

[126] On or about June 30, 2013, the Applicant served and filed RESPONSE to RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS HRTO 2012-12585-I , which articulated the following in which Wayne Ferron requested “…January 2014 HEARING date…”;

 

“TAKE NOTICE: The Applicant has not been given an official response from the RESPONDENING parties, nor has he been properly served with official documents which has been filed with the TRIBUNAL, nor has he been instructed how, and where to serve the RESPONDENTS additional documents; 2500 Cawthra Employees has threaten to throw rece

The Applicant respectfully requntly filed legal documents by the Applicant into the garbage.

est 4 weeks to file a proper response, to documentations and argument of the RESPONDENTS, he was never properly served in accordance with civilized practice of law. Moreover, the Applicant notified all parties officially in accordance with the RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and Canadian civilized practice of law.

 

Again, the applicant intents to serve, and file medical information relevant to the matter before the TRIBUNAL; the Applicant is asking for a January 2014 HEARING date, so he can accumulate enough funds to  collect and serve his relevant medical information; I am a human being with human worth and would like to be treated in a dignified manner.

 

Pursuant to the documentation served on my person at the wrong address (neighborhood which I have no dealings with and does not speak English) and not in the proper mailbox which cannot contain the very large package after I notified and gave detailed instructions of a manner to serve my person to assure service is successful or received successfully with conformation.

 

The respondent's arguments contain many fallacies, mainly the cause and effect fallacy.  THE CIVIL STATEMENT OF CLAIM(let us call it EXHIBIT A), does not strengthen the respondent's argument but weakens it; pursuant to the Director(BLESSING ANYANWU) at PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS, at 2500 Cawthra Rd., Mississauga, the Applicant was being denied service at the same homeless shelter, and due process for trying to affect his legal rights by way of EXHIBIT A;  the director(Mr. Blessings) was quite clear on the above point which he articulated many times and there was two other manager's at the said EMERGENCY SHELTER facility which witness this while they were being asked by the Applicant if their said action was legal, because of the revenge or punishment or vigilante justice dimension for exercising ones legal right . In addition to the intake clerks articulating in clear language that they were given instructions not to process or give me shelter at the same EMERGENCY SHELTER for unstated or written reasonable cause. After waiting outside for two days without food or water, the same EMERGENCY SHELTER called the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE (Officer 3424, 3470)  to have THE APPLICANT  removed from public property across the street from the same shelter, which they made a determination that they could not reasonable do what was being requested of them.

 

THE APPLICANT will state the functional PREMISES for the respondents here again. The respondents in their defense must show that the premises or impossible to be true or the arguments supporting the Applicant's PREMISES  contain logical or legal fallacies which prevents the Applicant from reaching the conclusion he is trying to respectfully submit or articulate before the TRIBUNAL.”

 

 [127] On or about July 10, 2013, the Applicant served and filed REQUISITION FOR EXTENSION OF RESPONSE TIME HRTO 2012-12585-I , which articulated the following in which Wayne Ferron requested “…January 2014 HEARING date…”;

“…Again, the applicant intents to serve, and file medical information

rellevant to the matter before the TRIBUNAL;

the Applicant is asking for December 2013 date for the HEARING

or a January 2014 HEARING date

{…}

the Applicant was being denied service at the same homeless shelter and du process for trying to affect his legal rights byway of EXHIBIT A; the director(Mr Blessings) was quite clear on the above point which he articulated many times and there was two other manager's at the said EMERGENCY SHELTER facility which witness this while they were being asked by the Applicant if their said action was legal, because of the…”

 

 

[128] On or about May 7, 2013, the Applicant served and filed NOTICE OF INTENSIONS HRTO 2012-12585-I , which articulated the following in which Wayne Ferron requested “…January 2014 HEARING date…”;

“…Applicant is asking for December 2013 date for the HEARING

or a January 2014 HEARING date, so he can accumulate enough funds to collect and serve his relevant medical information; I am a

human being with human worth and would like to be treated in a dignified manner…”

 

 

[129] Since, the Applicant pleaded for a January 2014 Hearing of HRTO 2012-12585-I, and the findings of PREMISE (7), in addition to the failure to serve the APPLICANT A NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER in a timely manner, it follows that the first limb of NATURAL JUSTICE has been violated.

 

[130] Pursuant to ADMINISTRATION LAW by David J. Mullan;

NATURAL JUSTICE

HEAR THE OTHER SIDE(AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM):

“The rules of procedural fairness or natural justice are divided

 into two separate categories. the first category comprises the decision maker provide adequate opportunities for those affected to present their case and respond to the evidence and arguments being advanced by other participants or in the knowledge or possession of the decision maker. The Latin term for this is ”audi alteram partem,” though its admonition to hear or listen to the other side is {...} The second limb of the rules covers the requirement that decision makers be independent and unbiased. Here too, there is and underinclusive Latin term:

 “nemo judex in sua propria causa debet esse” - no one should be a judge in her or his own cause.”

(ADMINISTRATION LAW - David J. Mullan; page 232)

 

 

REMEDY (S. 26.3 c):

[92] The applicant respectfully request THAT THE HONOURABLE HRTO-TRIBUNAL:

 

1.  CONSIDERS the Applicants argument located in his filed FINAL-AMENDED-AMENDED HRTO 2012-12585, WHICH HE WAS DIRECTED TO FILE for the HEARING, BUT IT SEEMS that it was never reviewed;

2.  written articulated reasons in your RECONSIDERATION JUDGEMENT of why HRTO-REGISTRAR’S  NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DEFER HRTO 2012-12585-I, was not referred to or mentioned in the reasons for judgement or FINAL JUDGEMENT (2012-12585-I) ?

3.  written articulated reasons in your RECONSIDERATION JUDGEMENT of why FINAL ORDER CV 12-0716-00,  was not referred to or mentioned in the reasons for judgement or FINAL JUDGEMENT (2012-12585-I) ?

4.  written articulated reasons in your RECONSIDERATION JUDGEMENT of why GOOD FAIT,  was not an issue, referred to or mentioned in the reasons for judgement or FINAL JUDGEMENT (2012-12585-I) ?

5.  Any remedy the this honourable court may consider just.

 

[131] Pursuant to Madam Kathleen Wynne;

“Dear Minister Meilleur:

 

I am honoured to welcome you back to your role as Attorney General. We have a strong Cabinet in place, and I am confident that together we will build Ontario up, create new opportunities and champion a secure future for people across our province. The people of Ontario have entrusted their government to be a force for good, and we will reward that trust by working every day in the best interests of every person in this province.

{...}

As Chief Law Officer of the Crown, you have a unique role in providing independent legal advice to Cabinet, with a special responsibility as the guardian of the rule of law. You are responsible for ensuring Cabinet is properly advised on the constitutionality and legal risks of all government initiatives. You and your ministry staff will also continue to provide legal advice to all ministries, and to review the conduct of litigation on behalf of the government.

 

Your ministry’s specific priorities include:

             Promoting Fairness and Access to Justice

l                  Continuing to focus on the delivery of legislative and systemic initiatives that promote fairness and access to our justice system for Ontarians.

l                  Engaging in discussions within the legal profession about improving access to justice. You will develop a strategy to expand Legal Aid support for the most vulnerable within our society by working to raise the income eligibility threshold to qualify for Legal Aid. Your goal is to ensure that more Ontarians in need are represented by a lawyer through Legal Aid — or have access to the legal supports they may need.

l                  Pursuing the re-introduction of legislation to protect the public from lawsuits intended to discourage public participation.

l                  Supporting the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in reviewing the scope and effectiveness of the Ontario Municipal Board and in recommending possible reforms to improve its role within the broader land use planning system.

l                  As the Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs, continuing to work to ensure ongoing improvement in the availability of French-language services within the justice system, including court services.”

( Kathleen Wynne Premier Updated: September 25, 2014 ,2014 Mandate letter: Attorney General Premier's instructions to the Minister on priorities for the year 2014)

 

 

[132]  The State has breached its confidence in its relationship of trust with my person, a member of the collective byway of the tortious actions of its relevant institutions, relevant policies the said institutions, unspoken political agendas, agents and subcontractors.

 

This has not only damaged me and my children's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness; but also the delicate fabric of our beloved democratic society. This actionable wrong destroys the bonds of trust which is an essential element in the building of a successful society.

 

Moreover, these tortious actions unravels the threads of trust which binds and holds the collective together and ensure its overall well being and social health. Herein is the sinful actionable wrong against my person and the Canadian community.

 

With all of this collateral argument going on, let me remind the the honourable Madeleine Meilleur, that the essence of why we are all here in this country and this province of Ontario; and in so doing, recall the society we are suppose to be living in.

 

·   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:

 

 

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.)

 

Para 1 and 2 establishes and affirms the right and freedom of a human being in a general way. Para 3 is saying that without a common respect for human dignity, it is not possible for society as we know it, are for our collective to exist in its present form.

 

Para 4 concede that there is a link between the Rights and Freedom of the person and the effective functionality of the collective. There is a relationship between the health and well being of the collective and the Rights and Freedom of the individual.

 

Rights and Freedom are generally thought of as being a means of protection and a check and balance against the insurmountable power of the collective. But, here its saying that if you harm the individual you are harming the collective and this intern has a dramatic affect on the health and well being of the totality of our society.

 

This is why I am in love with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, Preamble. It make the extra step, and it is beautiful for this reason.

 

THIS IS WHAT I for one BELIEVE IN, THIS IS THE SOCIETY I HOPE FOR, THIS IS THE HUMANITY I VOTE FOR and THIS IS THE WAY OF LIFE I CHOOSE TO FIGHT FOR!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of which is respectfully submitted.

 

August 26, 2015

 

 

 

 

                _________________________

Wayne FERRON

 

Wayne FERRON

HOMELESS VAGABOND

 

HOMELESS SHELTER

ST. SIMON’S SHELTER

BED#3 – 525Bloor Street East,

Toronto, Ontario, M4W 1J1

leegalpoet@gmail.com

 

AS A PROTEST TO THE UNREASONABLE RESPONDENT DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585.I, i PLACED ON THE BACK OF MOST OF MY LEGAL PRIVATE PROSECUTION DOCUMENTS THE FOLLOWING;

TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RESIDENCE FLOODS AND IS INFECTED WITH BLACK MOLD; I AM FORCED TO LIVE INHUMANLY AND EXPECTED TO BRING MY DAUGHTER WHOM I HAVE FULL CUSTODY FOR, TO LIVE THERE. I am left to die in the said conditions by ONTARIO- WORKS. PLEASE SEND ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE ADRESS BY REGULAR MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAY TIME, I MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS .

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX ``A``

 

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA

 

 

 

NO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER 2012-12585-I:

Pursuant to FREEDOM AND INFORMATION COORDINATOR Susan Benger July 15, 2015 signed letter to the Applicant;

``...The HRTO did not issue a Notice of Intent to Defer with respect to 2012-12585-I. The HRTO did not issue a Notice of Intent to Defer  with respect to this application...``

 

 

APPENDIX ``B``

 

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA

 

 

APPENDIX ``B``/ NO FINAL ORDER for CV 12-716:

Pursuant to the Madam Madugalla E. (CLERK-WICKET 11 OR 12), and her supervisor at SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-CIVIL REGISTRAR at or about 10:30 a.m., on  July 22, 2015 CONCERNING court information for CV 12-716;

Madam Madugalla E. supervisor could not find any ENDORSEMENT for CV 12-716 or any information concerning Motion On Notice CV 12-716, returnable on Nov 25, 2013 at 10:00 am.``

 

TAKE NOTICE: that none of the CLERKS nor myself or there supervisor was able to find a FINAL ORDER for CV 12-716 or any endorsement or period! Such a thing just does not exist!

 

 

Pursuant to the EVENT  RESULT INFORMATION from the  PUBLIC VIEW TERMINAL at SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-CIVIL REGISTRAR at or about 10:30 a.m., on  July 22, 2015 CONCERNING court information for CV 12-716;

`` No Order/Judgement Information found for selected Case.``

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX ``C``

 

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA

 

NO FINAL ORDER for CV 12-716:

Pursuant to a the femal CLERK at SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-CIVIL REGISTRAR at wicket 20 at or about 8:30 a.m., on  July 22, 2015 whom check and double checked court information on her computer terminal and or the court files on CV 12-716;

``...There is no FINAL ORDER for CV 12- 716 and there is no ENDORSEMENTS!``

 

 

APPENDIX ``D``

 

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA

 

 

 

EMAIL: Blessing Anyanwu (Director) admission for HRTO 2012-12585-I:

 

 

       Pursuant to the Blessing Anyanwu (Director) from the  REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER at 2500 Cawthra Rd. Mississauga, at or about 12:07 p.m., on  September 06, 2012 in his Email response to Kelly-Anne Salerno (Human Services Department Program Supervisor, Client & Community Access Division…), after the Applicant spent from September 1, 2012 to September 6, 2012 across the Cawthra Road without food, water, a bed, or bathroom facilities while the REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER had beds available and the same Shelter was not filled to capacity or being fully utilized;

`` Staff already informed him that he is restricted,  and cannot be admitted. He wanted to know why he is restricted. Staff referred him to management. Allison and I met with him in the lobby at about 10:30 AM.

 

I informed him that he cannot be re-admitted at this time due to his law suit against the Salvation Army and the Region of Peel {…}He said that we cannot hold this against him; this is against his human rights…``

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX ``E``

 

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA

 

SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL ORDER CV  12-716:

 

On or about July 13^th, 2011 the SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL, made an INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER (1106-04904) in the following manner;

 

“...The Tribunal directs that the Administrator, Social Services Dept Region

of Peel, pay interim assistance to the above noted appellant effective

June 01, 2011 to November 30, 2011...”

 

On or about August 2^nd, 2011 Ontario-Works (Region of Peel), again redundantly terminated financial assistance to which the Applicant was not in receipt of, and in contravention of SOCIAL BENEFIT TRIBUNAL INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER(1106-04904), and Section 127(1), 22.1 or 22.2 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, while the same order was in full force byway of Section 3.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA . Jane Anderspn-Renton(Manager), articulated the aforesaid in the following manner;

 

“Your current financial assistance has been suspended because: you

cannot receive financial assistance if you reside in an institution that provide

for your basic needs and shelter. Your financial assistance will stop

as of August 2nd, 2011 because you are living in an institution.”

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX ``F``

 

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA

 

SALVATION ARMY STATEMENT OF DEFENCE CV 12-0716:

 

[234] Pursuant to the THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA and Harry Boom;

The Defendants, The Governing Council of The Salvation Army in Canada {…} and Harry Boom (“Mr. Boom”), deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Statement of Claim.”

 

 

 

APPENDIX ``G``

 

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and

FILED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WITH INTERNAL COURT PAPERS for CV 12-0716 on August 19, 2015:

 

 

Pursuant to the Pauline Labelle (Supervisor)  and her subordinate Malanie Harvey,  a Civil-Registrar Clerk  on the 19^th of August, 2015 at about Wicket # 14 (K242) at or about  8:41am, after being asked relevant questions by the Applicant;

   x.        CV 12-0716 has not been stayed (see Para[5]  of Justice Andrea’s Vexative Order;

  xi.        No one has filed Justice Andrea’ Vexative Order CV 13-1060 to stay CV 12-716;

 xii.        There is no final order for CV 12-0716;

xiii.        There is no existing orders or endorsements for CV 12-0716;

There is no final order for CV 13-1060 AFTER SHE DID AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH IN FILE CV 13-1060 (Pauline Labelle (Supervisor)  there was no time limit for a FINAL ORDER and the onus was upon the Applicant to ensure there was one).  Pauline Labelle (Supervisor)  and her subordinate Malanie Harvey  accepted for filing at the BRAMPTON SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, “AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON CV 12-0716 under the condition of a “ON EXPLICIT  INSTRUCTIONS  FORM “ which states the following; 

“…request that the attached documents be accepted for filing based on their instructions as a party/lawyer/agent/paralegal, or based on the explicit instructions of a lawyer or paralegal…”

 

 

19 August 2015 Brampton courthouse  Super visor’s name : Pauline Labelle

 

 

 

APPENDIX ``H``

 

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA

 

SALVATION ARMY September 17, 2012 letter CV 12-0716:

 

A motion was file but was never attended or followed through by the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA despite there to the HRTO-TRIBUNAL to do so in the reasons for a multiple extension of time request to RESPOND to HRTO 2012-12585-I and the same HUMAN RIGHTS MATTER BEING DELAYED OR DEFERED. Hence, there are no endorsements or court orders for CV 12-0716. In the same letter     assert’s as follows;

“Re: The Salvation Army et al. ats. Wayne Ferron

      Court File No. cv-12-0716-00

{…} Please confirm that our request for a concurrent motion has been booked for December 5, 2012, as per my letter to court dated September 5, 2012…”

 

On April 12, 2013 THE GOVERNING COUNSEL OF THE SALVATION ARMY served and filed a letter seeking an extension of time to response to HRTO 2012-12585-I , ARTICULATED THE FOLLOWING;

“Attention: Richard Hennessy, Registrar

 

Dear Mr. hennessy:

 

Re: Wayne Ferron v. Salavation Army

HRTO File Number 2012-12585-I

 

I am in-house legal counsel for the above-named respondent.

 

The Salvation Army’s response is due on April12, 2013. I have been unable to obtain definitive instructions from my client in time to meet the above deadline. Kindly note that The Salvation Army is exploring the possibility of settling this matter.

In light of the above, I ask that the Tribunal provide The Salvation Army with a two week extension to provide it’s response.

(Legal Counsel, Elena Constantin, April 12, 2013 The Salvation Army Letter)

 

On December 05, 2012 THE GOVERNING COUNSEL OF THE SALVATION ARMY was not in attendance for there MOTION ON NOTICE CV 12-0716-00 at the  BRAMPTON SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, nor was THE GOVERNING COUNSEL OF THE SALVATION ARMY in attendance on November 25, 2013 for there adjourned December 05, 2012 MOTION ON NOTICE CV 12-0716-00 at the  BRAMPTON SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE dispite there above assertion to the HRTO-TRIBUNAL  for HRTO 2012-12585-I matter.

 

 

APPENDIX ``I``

 

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA

 

REQUISITIO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR RETURN OF STOLEN PROPERTY:

 

A motion was file but was never attended or followed through by the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA, hence no endorsements or court orders for CV 12-0716.

 

 

ATTENTION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

MR. JOHN GERRETSEN:

 

 “Do you know the way we all feel when we are in a relation of trust, and confidence(spouse, lover,  mate, etc.); when our partner in a fiduciary relationship violate the trust which binds the members of the same trust relationship( ex. Taking another lover).

 

Are your familiar with the deep heart wrenching feeling of how your intestines, and organs feel like they have been tied up in a knock, and being squeeze in the palm of a hand.

 

This is how I feel when I realized my beloved Government's inability to protect my family from the improper effort of it's agents to profile me as a crack addict, as violent, as a drunkard, as mentally diseased, and as a Criminal WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WITHOUT A FAIR HEARING,  WITHOUT CONVINCING EVIDENCE BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE MY CASE AND GIVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY BEFORE AN IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL BEFORE MY FREEDOM RIGHTS ARE TAKEN AWAY OR STOLEN. Malicious prosecution based on criminal actions will never be accepted in civilized democratic systems of governance.

 

You have no idea of the up-evil the above has caused in my life. But what pains most is the damage to my beloved four baby girls (my lovely ladies); their full potential stolen, their opportunity burgled, and their innocent expectation snuffed out before the maximum illumination of their magnificence could be reached.

 

As an example, my first born beloved child needed to have her braces removed or fixed; because it was in-bedding itself in her gums. The “civil death” affected upon my person totally destroyed my ability to obtain funds byway of work to take care of my responsibility(take care of my babies). It took me awhile to find a kind enough dentist to remove the said braces. Dentist as a rule are aversive to touching another dentist work.   

I regretfully inform you that I am unable to serve you the motion record for the constitutional application. I do not have the money to produce extra copies; in any event, the presiding Justice has stated on more than one occasion that you will not be participating in the matter before us on more than one occasion. “HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE SAME HONOURABLE JUDGE WAS INFORMED OF YOUR INTENSION IN REGARDS TO YOUR PARTICIPATION IN CR-12-70000061, BUT I WAS NOT FORMALLY INFORMED OF YOUR INTENSIONS. HOW?

 

You cannot use my poverty as a legal weapon to defeat my claim, or bring to pass your desired outcome. The beloved Canadian people would like to hear the answers to my questions in the proper platform or in a court of competent jurisdiction. Please adjourned the matter and give me enough time to serve you your documents in accordance with PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, if you desire time, and seek to know truth.

 

 

 

...Furthermore, it is an indication of the depth of humanity, intelligence, and quality of ones civilization and civilize practice of law when ones have the common human decency or ethics to properly respond to the deep convictions of ones beloved subjects or a fellow member of the Canadian collective, whom are concern about the state of our society and its continual  evolution to the betterment of all in the collective.  The social fabric should not be purposefully burned by those who act for we the people.

 

The so called label of entity, does-not excuse the same entity from possessing integrity, human decency, or having concerns, and care for the well being of members of society, and society at large; on a large enough scale to invoke an intelligent response to proceed to restitution, resolution, or adversarial contentious argument of humane parties at trial, for the determination of a plea of a just cause. We all know that none response is looked upon as an admission of guilt by the law of this land and by the courts of civilize nations.

 

Moreover, the State's Public Institutions and their corresponding policies in addition to Tribunals, all respond to none response as a silent statement or admission of guilt. It is a guilty mind(men rea)! Section 15 of our beloved Charter insures equity in law and fairness in the application of law.

{…}

 

To the SALVATION ARMY

and

To the REGION OF PEEL or REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER

 

please return forthwith my $5 0r $10 check made out to the Minister of Finance and my $10(11 466 978 57 ) money ORDER issued by CANADA POST to the SALVATION ARMY for the SALVATION ARMY and ONTARIO WORKS.

 

CANADA POST MONEY ORDER INFORMATION:

                SERIAL NO.:               11 466 978 57

                SECURITY CODE: 679 965 794

                OFFICE NO.:               102 205

 

“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX ``J``

 

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL and THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF SALVATION ARMY IN CANADA

 

HRTO CASE LAW:

 

Pursuant Samuel v. Waterloo Regional District School Board;

“[2]               On December 15, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer under section 45 of the Code and Rule 14.2 of its Rules of Procedure, as it appeared that the applicant had filed a grievance dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. The Custodial and Maintenance Association was notified as an organization that might be affected by the Application.”

(Samuel v. Waterloo Regional District School Board, 2011 HRTO 498 (CanLII))

 

 

Pursuant Oram v. Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada;

“[8]           A further Case Assessment Direction dated February 15, 2012 (“the February CAD”) was issued to the parties.  In it, the Tribunal stated that in the circumstances of the case, it seemed appropriate for the Tribunal to defer this proceeding until the Claims Adjudication Officer resolved the applicant’s dispute.  It noted that pursuant to Rule 14.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, where the Tribunal intends to defer, it is required to first give the parties notice of its intention to defer and give them an opportunity to make submissions. …”

 ( Oram v. Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada)

 

 

Pursuant Chivers v. National Steel Car Ltd.;

“Deferral

[2]               The Application noted a pending grievance. On March 1, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer under Rule 14.2 of its Rules of Procedure, as it appears that the applicant had filed a grievance dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. The applicant’s Union (United Steelworkers Local 7135) was given notice of the application as an affected organization. The parties and the Union were invited to make written submissions on why the Application should, or should not be deferred.

{…}

 [4]               The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Code s.45; Rule 14.1). he initial consideration for the Tribunal in deciding whether or not to defer consideration of an Application is whether the same facts and issues are being raised before another decision-maker with the authority to deal with issues arising under the Code”

(Chivers v. National Steel Car Ltd. 2012 HRTO 1150 )

 

Pursuant Laba v. Windsor (City), 2009 HRTO 693;

“DEFERRAL

[4]  Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. Where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an Application, it will first give the parties, any identified trade union or occupational or professional organization and any identified affected persons, notice of its intention to consider deferral and an opportunity to make submissions (Rule 14.2).”

 

( Laba v. Windsor (City), 2009 HRTO 693)

 

 

Pursuant Laba v. Windsor (City);

“DEFERRAL  

[13]           Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application.  Under Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party.  Where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an application, it will first give the parties, any identified trade union or occupational or professional organization and any identified affected persons, notice of its intention to consider deferral and an opportunity to make submissions (Rule 14.2).

[14]           The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.  However, the Tribunal must also consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application. “

 

(Laba v. Windsor (City), 2009 HRTO 382)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pursuant to   Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board;

“[1] Section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), gives this Tribunal the authority to dismiss all or part of an application where the substance of the application has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. In this Interim Decision, we re-examine this Tribunal’s approach to the interpretation and application of s. 45.1 when an applicant previously filed a public complaint about the conduct of a police officer under the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, as amended (the “PSA”).

 

[2] In Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19, the Supreme Court held in an analogous situation, applying the common law doctrine of issue estoppel, that it would be unfair to preclude a public complainant from pursuing a subsequent civil claim because of the findings in the Ontario police officer discipline process. In our view, the appropriate interpretation of s. 45.1 does not permit the dismissal of a human rights application when this would lead to unfairness, given the nature of the other process and the difference in the issues at stake in that process. In light of the guidance of the Court about the unfairness that would result from dismissing a human rights application based on previous police disciplinary proceedings, these Applications must proceed.”

(PARA[1] TO [2], Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board  2013hrto1298-1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of which is respectfully submitted.

 

August 26, 2015

 

 

 

 

                _________________________

Wayne FERRON

 

Wayne FERRON

HOMELESS VAGABOND

 

HOMELESS SHELTER

ST. SIMON’S SHELTER

BED#3 – 525Bloor Street East,

Toronto, Ontario, M4W 1J1

leegalpoet@gmail.com

 

AS A PROTEST TO THE UNREASONABLE RESPONDENT DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585.I, i PLACED ON THE BACK OF MOST OF MY LEGAL PRIVATE PROSECUTION DOCUMENTS THE FOLLOWING;

TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RESIDENCE FLOODS AND IS INFECTED WITH BLACK MOLD; I AM FORCED TO LIVE INHUMANLY AND EXPECTED TO BRING MY DAUGHTER WHOM I HAVE FULL CUSTODY FOR, TO LIVE THERE. I am left to die in the said conditions by ONTARIO- WORKS. PLEASE SEND ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE ADRESS BY REGULAR MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAY TIME, I MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TO:  

HRTO  Registrar

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
655 Bay Street, 14th floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2A3

Phone: 416-326-1519
Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322
TTY: 416-326-2027
TTY Toll-free: 1-866-607-1240

Fax: 416-326-2199

 

 

 

AND TO:

Blair McCreadie

GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY

DENTONS CANADA LLP

77 KING sT. WEST, SUITE 400

Toronto-Dominion Centre

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

M5K 0A1

Phone: 416 863 4511

FAX: 416 863 4592

 

AND TO:

 

Patrick O’Connor

Gurjit Brar (LSUC.: 42197E)

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL

10 Peel Centre Drive, Suite A and B,

Brampton, ON L6T 4B9

Phone: 905-791-7800  ext 4959

Fax: 905 791 6992

Toll-free: 1-888-919-7800

 

LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE:

TIME OF OCCURRENCE : STARTING about SEPTEMBER 2012 to PRESENT

PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS

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

Tel: 905 281 1272

Fax: 905 273 7522

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

 

WAYNE FERRON

 -versus-

REGIONAL MUNICIPLE OF PEEL ET. AL.

 

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th floor, Toronto, ON M7A 2A3 Phone: 416-326-1519 ___________________________ REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ____________________________________________ Wayne FERRON HOMELESS VAGABOND leegalpoet@gmail.com AS A PROTEST TO THE UNREASONABLE RESPONDENT DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585.I, i PLACED ON THE BACK OF MOST OF MY LEGAL PRIVATE PROSECUTION DOCUMENTS THE FOLLOWING; TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RESIDENCE FLOODS AND IS INFECTED WITH BLACK MOLD; I AM FORCED TO LIVE INHUMANLY AND EXPECTED TO BRING MY DAUGHTER WHOM I HAVE FULL CUSTODY FOR, TO LIVE THERE. I am left to die in the said conditions by ONTARIO- WORKS. PLEASE SEND ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE ADRESS BY REGULAR MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAY TIME, I MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS .