REPRISAL: PUNISHMENT FOR FATHER AND CHILD FOR SUING FOR $1.00 ON PRICIPAL & THE PUBLIC GOOD

HRTO FILE NO.:2012-12585-I

SOCIAL
TRIBUNAL.: 1106-04904

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

CHILD/HOUSING/HOMLESS SHELTER/PRIVATE PROSECUTION punishment

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

and Article 2(1), 3, 14(1), 23.87, 23.101, 23.105, 25(c), 26, 27, 50, and 51

________________________________________

FINAL-AMENDED-AMENDED

APPLICANT’S FACTUM

FIRST HEARING ON MATTER

______________________________________________________

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

leegalpoet@gmail.com

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

Fax: 416-326-2199

APENDIX A - RESPONSE to RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS - PAGE 317

TAKE NOTICE: At the time of cause of action, the applicant had full custody of his none adult child he loves with all his heart, and full responsibility, with the full protection of child care laws.

INDEX

SHORT ESSENTIAL FACTS page 3 - 23

ASSUMPTIONS page 24 - 25

PREMISE page 26 - 29

OVERVIEW page 30 – 64

DENIAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES S. 1 page 30 – 32

APPLICANT ACCOUNT page 32 – 40

RESPONSE TO NO NOID page 40 - 49

DISCRIMINATION page 50 - 60

LINKAGE page 53 - 58

REPRISALS page 59 – 60

CASE LAW page 61 - 63

REPRISALS page 61

POLICE SERVICES page 62

DISCLOSURE page 62

FAIRNESS page 63

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS page 63 – 64

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFER page 64

THEFT page 65

WITNESS LIST page 66 - 70

SUMMARY OF FACTS page 71 -135

NO FINAL ORDER: CV 12-71600(civil matter) page 71 – 74

HRTO PROCESS page 74 – 82

GOODFAIT page 82 – 99

CIVIL MATTER CV 12-71600 page 100 – 111

JOHN GESCHER(BLOCKING SERVICE) page 112 – 126

HRTO DISCLOSURE page 127-133

HRTO ASSERTS DENIAL OF EVIDENCE page 133-135

LEGAL ARGUMENTS page 136–302

PREMISE 140-142 PREMISE (12&13) 218-234

PREMISE (1 &2) 143-149 PREMISE (14&15) 235 -239

PREMISE (3&4) 150-152 PREMISE (16&17) 240 -242

PREMISE (4&5) 153-161 PREMISE (18&19) 243 -245

PREMISE (6) 162-173 PREMISE (20) 246

PREMISE (7) 174 PREMISE (21) 247 -250

PREMISE (8) 175-194 PREMISE (22) 251 -302

PREMISE (9) 195-199 REMEDY 303 -313

PREMISE (10&11) 200 -217 APENDIX A 317 -359

SHORT ESSENTIAL FACTS:

1.) 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.

2.) 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!”

3.) 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!”

4.) 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!”

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

6.) 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]

7.) 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.

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

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

10.) 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!”

11.) 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!”

12.) 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!”

13.) 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 was 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!”

14.) 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!”

15.) 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!”

16.) 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!”

17.) 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!”

18.) 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!”

19.) 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!”

20.) 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!”

21.) 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.

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

23.) APPLICANT filed RETURN TO MOTION OR APPLICATION HRTO 2012-12585-I on or about 06 March 2015.

24.) 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.

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

26.) 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.

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

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

29.) 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.

30.) 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!

31.) 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.

32.) 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.

33.) 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. 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.

34.) 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!”

35.) 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

36.) 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

[1] Pursuant to Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106;

Inspection of files

26. (1) Where the necessary facilities are available, any person may, with supervision and without interfering with the business of the Court, inspect a Court file or annex

Removal of documents from file

(2) Nothing shall be removed from a Court file or annex except

(a) under an order of the Court;

(b) by an officer of the Registry acting in the course of his or her duties; or

Removal of files

(3) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, no Court file or annex to a Court file shall be removed from the Registry by any person other than

(a) a judge, prothonotary or referee; or

(b) an officer of the Registry acting in the course of his or her duties.

SOR/2002-417, s. 3.

Definition

26.1 (1) In this rule, “appeal” includes an appeal of an order of a prothonotary, an application for leave to appeal and an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Removal of exhibits from file

(2) Subject to subsection (4), exhibits put into evidence shall remain in the Court file either

(a) until the time for an appeal has expired, if no appeal has been taken, or

(b) until the appeal is disposed of, if an appeal has been taken.

SOR/2002-417, s. 4.

[2] Pursuant to the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106;

Reasons

393. The Court may deliver reasons for judgment

(a) orally from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing of a proceeding; or

(b) after having reserved judgment at the conclusion of a hearing, by depositing in the Registry written reasons, signed by the judge or prothonotary who delivered them.

Drafting of order

394. (1) Where the Court gives reasons, it may direct one of the parties to prepare for endorsement a draft order to implement the Court's conclusion, approved as to form and content by the other parties or, where the parties cannot agree on the form and content of the order, to bring a motion for judgment in accordance with rule 369.

Pronouncement of judgment

(2) On the return of a motion under subsection (1), the Court shall settle the terms of and pronounce the judgment, which shall be endorsed in writing and signed by the presiding judge or prothonotary.

Copies to be sent

395. (1) Subject to subsection 36(3), the Administrator shall send without delay a copy of every order made and of any reasons given other than in open court to all parties

(a) by registered mail;

(b) by electronic means, including facsimile and electronic mail; or

(c) by any other means, as directed by the Chief Justice, likely to bring the order and any reasons to the attention of the party.

Proof of receipt

(2) If an order and any reasons are transmitted by electronic means, the Administrator shall confirm receipt by the party and place proof of that receipt on the Court file.

SOR/2010-177, s. 6.

[3] Pursuant to RULE 59.02 of RULES OF CIVIL PRACTICE;

ENDORSEMENT BY JUDGE OR OFFICER

59.02 (1) An endorsement of every order shall be made on the appeal book and compendium, record, notice of motion or notice of application by the court, judge or officer making it, unless the circumstances make it impractical to do so. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.02 (1); O. Reg. 19/03, s. 10.

(2) Where written reasons are delivered,

(a) in an appellate court, an endorsement is not required;

(b) in any other court, the endorsement may consist of a reference to the reasons,

and a copy of the reasons shall be filed in the court file. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.02 (2).

[4] Pursuant to RULE 59.03 of the RULES OF CIVIL PRACTICE;

PREPARATION AND FORM OF ORDER

Preparation of Draft Formal Order

59.03 (1) Any party affected by an order may prepare a draft of the formal order and send it to all other parties represented at the hearing for approval of its form. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.03 (1);

[5] Lawyers are required by the RULE 4.01(2)(e) on page 53 and page 54 of the RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT which directs as follows;

“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...”

[6] Pursuant to VIDÉOTRON LTÉE et al. and NESTAR COMMUNICATIONS INC. et al., 2003 FCA 56;

“[6] The authorities are clear that where an order or decision is not pronounced or delivered in public, the order or decision is not made until such time as the order or decision is entered by the

Registry or when the parties are notified of the decision.

{...}

Strong J., in concurring reasons, was also of the view that the time to appeal could not begin to run until the judgment had been entered. At page 218, he made the following remarks:

I do not recognize the handing by the judge to the registrar, not in open court but in his office or perhaps in the street, as a "pronouncing of a decision" within the terms of rule 269.”

[7] Pursuant to NIKE CANADA LTD. and NIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD. - and - JANE DOE and JOHN DOE et al., T-1636-99 on page 4;

“ORDER

UPON PLAINTIFFS" EX PARTE MOTION made on September 27, 1999, for

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Commencement and Term of Order

1. The terms of this Order shall become effective against each Defendant only from the commencement of the day on which it is served on that defendant and shall remain in effect for fourteen days thereafter, unless otherwise ordered by the Court...”

ASSUMPTIONS:

1. The reasons why HRTO-REFUSED the APPLICANT’S REQUISITION FOR INFORMATION(IPC) byway of “DEEM REFUSED” was to insure fairness and efficiency in the process.

2. The reason why the HRTO 2014-12585-I was delayed, thereby causing my child and I sustained and delayed suffering was to insure fairness and efficiency in the process.

3. The reason why HRTO-REGISTRAR ignored my call for help, and advice of pending medical emergency and social emergency concerning my children, was to insure fairness and equity in the process.

4. The reason why HRTO-REGISTRAR refused me and oral hearing, and advised me to file my legal document as hard copy at great cost even though it is known that I am a homeless vagabond with no income, was for fairness, equity, and efficiency in the process.

5. The RESPONDENT was served the initial filing documents (FORM 1 & VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT), and chose not to respond, nor to challenge the same allegations.

6. APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE

7. TIME: APPLICANT’S COMPLAINT WAS DEALT WITH IN AN EFFICIENT AND TIMELY MANNER.

8. PROCEDURE IS FAIR AND EQUAL.

9. NATURAL JUSTICE was not violated.

10. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS was not violated.

11. There was EQUAL ACCESS TO EVIDENCE and JUSTICE.

PREMISE:

1.) Did the REGION OF PEEL disobey or contravene the SOCIAL TRIBUNAL Interim Assistance Order.: 1106-04904 for THE SOCIAL TRIBUNAL FILE.: 1106-04904 in the time interval [01 June 2011 to 30 November 2011]?

2.) Was the year of the incident with Mr. Harry Boom year 2011?

3.) Was the year of the incident with Mr. Blessing Anyananwu, Year 2012?

4.) Was the Year of the HUMAN RIGHTS INCIDENT (2012-12585-I) YEAR 2012;

5.) Are the two independent incidence concerning Mr. Harry Boom and Mr. Blessing Anyanwu the same or overlapping incidence?

6.) Did the RESPONDENTS mislead the HRTO tribunal?

7.) Did the respondents delay OR DEFERED HRTO 2012-12585-I, BYWAY OF A REQUEST FOR ORDER and by HRTO-RULE 7. On the basses of the two independent incidence concerning Mr. Harry Boom, and Mr. A Blessing are the same or overlapping incidence?

8.) Is there a CONTRAVENTION NATURAL JUSTICE?

9.) Is there CONTRAVENTION PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS?

10.) IS HRTO 2012-12585-I VOIDABLE?

11.) Did Agents of THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, a RESPONDENT, contravene Section 127(1) of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA?

12.) Did JOHN H. GESCHER or ANN C. DINNERT or TANYA GALLOWAY, lawyers for the THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL , contravene Article 4.01 of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT?

13.) Did JOHN H. GESCHER or ANN C. DINNERT or TANYA GALLOWAY, lawyers THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, contravene of Rule A 7.1 of the HRTO RULES?

14.) Did JOHN H. GESCHER or ANN C. DINNERT or TANYA GALLOWAY or THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, contravene Section 8. of theHUMAN RIGHTS CODE?

15.) Did JOHN H. GESCHER or ANN C. DINNERT or TANYA GALLOWAY or THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, contravene Section 139 or SECTION 22.1 or Section 22.2 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA?

16.) Did Blair McCreadie, a lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY and a RESPONDENT, contravene Article 4.01 of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT?

17.) Did Blair McCreadie, a lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY and a RESPONDENT, contravene of Rule A 7.1 of the HRTO RULES?

18.) Did Blair McCreadie, a lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY and a RESPONDENT, contravene Section 8. of theHUMAN RIGHTS CODE?

19.) Did the RESPONDENTS, act in “GOOD FATE!”

20.) Has the process for HRTO 2012-12585-I been fair?

21.) Did the RESPONDENTS violate legislation?

22.) “[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?”

OVERVIEW:

DENIAL OF GOOD AND SERVICES SECTION 1.

[8] HRTO COMPLAINT: denial of goods and services (Section 1. HUMAN RIGHTS CODE), BYWAY OF denial of a HOMELESS SHELTER that had viable vacant space for three days without lawful cause by distinction(DISCRIMINATION), and the threat to action of denial of the goods and services of a HOMELESS SHELTER FOR THE sole justification of lawful legal action or actions (REPRISALS).

[9] DISCRIMINATION BY DISTINCTION, because I didn't witness any other HOMELESS SHELTER clients being denied homeless shelter services or turned away from the PEEL REGION HOMELESS SHELTER while waiting for three days or more outside, without food, water, or homeless services from a homeless shelter which had available space and available homeless services just across the street that the Applicant was unjustly barred from accessing.

[10] Immediately upon becoming homeless, I went to the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, located in the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL in the city of Mississauga, to seek out emergency shelter.

[11] The REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, blatantly refused to grant me(Wayne Ferron) access to the publicly funded facility which provides shorter living facility and services for homeless people from the Region of Peel Emergency Shelter needs, in addition to being bound by the ''SHELTER STANDERS'' agreement and the HUMAN RIGHT'S ACT.

[12] I am presently homeless, impecunious, and financially destitute. It seems that this is the way court cases or won, by way of “civil death”, social warfare, and denial of all the things Section 7. Of the Charter guarantees (life, liberty, security, and the pursuit of happiness).

APPLICANT’s ACCOUNT

OF DENIAL OF GOODs AND SERVICES

[13] On September 1, 2012 I became homeless.

[14] On September 1, 2012 I went to 2500 Cawthra Rd in the Region of Peel, in the City of Mississauga at the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, for help AT ABOUT 11:00 P.M..

[15] On September 1, 2012 at about 11:00 P.M., it was boldly asserted to my person in clear and distinct language that I was “restricted” and to “leave” the premises, without the process of an intake assessment.

[16] On ward from September 1, 2012 I spent the nights and days homeless on the other side of the road to the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, without food or water except for I kind act by a client of the same shelter buying food and giving it to my person.

[17] Onward from September 1, 2012 I spent the nights and days homeless on the other side of the road across from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER. I called the REGION OF PEEL HELP LINE to no avail, I call the PROVINCIAL OMBUSMAN COMISSION to no avail, and I called the PROVINCIAL HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION to no avail; it was a long weekend with a government holiday, so all the aforesaid public institutions were closed for the long weekend.

[18] On September 2, 2012 at REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, an employee came across the street to inform me that the Manager restricted me and I will have to see the manager ( The director, Mr. Blessings), before I can be admitted to the same shelter. Moreover, I was advised that the managers, mainly (The director, Mr. Blessings) would be back after the holidays on 4/09/2012.

[19] After waiting outside for two days without food or water, the PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTERS employees called the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE (Officer 3424, and Officer 3470) to have my person removed from public property across the street from the same shelter, the same Officers made a determination that they could not reasonable do what was being requested of them.

[20] On September 5, 2012 I went to speak to the Managers, mainly (The director, Mr. Blessings) as per the Intake Clerks at the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER. I spoke to two Managers extensively who neither knew, nor was able to articulate the moral or legal justification for restricting my person from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER. While others who had numerous policy infringement were admitted. Moreover, they said I must speak to another manager( The director, Mr. Blessings) due in one hour.

[21] On September 5, 2012 at about 11:00 a.m., at the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, I was advised in clear direct language by the Manager( The director, Mr. Blessings) that I (Wayne Ferron) was restricted from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER for a pending action against the REGION for HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION of Section 1. Of the Act.

[22] I informed him that I was only suing for $1.00 and for the good of the public; Furthermore, the legal action was on principal of improving the fair treatment of homeless individuals, or maybe I was the only person being discriminated against?

[23] I was promptly shown the door even though I advise the 3 Managers present with a qualification of uncertainty that the action being taken against my person may not be legal, for you cannot hold one's legal rights hostage, to discriminate against a person within the context of equal, and fair services to all Canadians.

[24] I was promptly; shown the door, in fact it was held open for me.

· PLEASE SEE time of filing EXHIBIT A, and SUMMARY OF FACTS.

[25] On September 1, 2012 I became homeless. Ontario-Works HAS NO RECORDS OF ME BEING RESTRICTED FROM THE REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER; the matter of restriction from the REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER, seem to be arbitrary, frivolous, vexatious, and motivated by revenge in an effort to extract vigilante justice for past complaints on HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.

[26] In my view forcing a person to suffer homeless when there is access to facilities to help with this said problem is an unlawful act. NOTE AND RECALL, Ontario-works HAS NO RECORDS OF ME BEING RESTRICTED FROM THE REGION OF PEEL EMERGENCY SHELTER. Which infers that the REGION OF PEEL has no record of me being restricted? NONE! I am not even flag for any pass unreasonable acts or acts of omission. Besides, it was more than a year since I had been in any homeless shelter.

· PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT A

[27] The above incidence made me feel like an undesirable human being with less social value or sub human trouble maker, whom was being punished for taking action endorsed by the will of Parliament.

[28] I was made to suffer homelessness, loss of dignity, hunger and forced to battle the natural elements for trying to affect my legal rights to bring before a court of competent jurisdiction, matters which affect the public good and the public confidence and trust in services involving a civil society.

[29] Violation of Parliamentary legislation is to be dealt with by the courts of competent jurisdiction and not by way of vigilante punishment as though the law isnot a slave to certain particular element of society.

[30] I was not given reasonable notice of my RESTRICTION, even though I requested personal Information disclosure on more than one occasion; the information request were simply ignored and the said institution fail to return the necessary monies to start the search and disclosure process, in contravention of Section 322(1), 334, and 380(1)

of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

[31] I should have been properly notified of the said RESTRICTION if it existed, processed by the intake office, then my application denied for a lawful, policy or moral written articulated justification. This did not happen! I did not have due process or equal treatment given to citizen belonging to nations which effect civilized practice of law or are signatures to the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL COVENANT; a promise to the international community to treat your citizens humanely, and Ontario/Canada are nation states which have signed the aforesaid promise .

[32] My complaint was on a matter of principle, the public good, to recognize and acknowledge that homeless people are also people with freedom rights and human dignity; hopefully in the adjudicative process, the human condition for Canadians my improve, even if it is just a little.

[33] We are all social beings, whom must live and interact with each other because of the very nature of who we are. This is a necessary thing for social beings. It make me happy and I feel fulfilled when we are respectful to each other and are Christ like in our treatment of each other.

RESPONSE TO NO NOTICE OF INTENT OT DISMISS

[34] The following was on the title page of the RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS…(2012-12585-I), but the same document was not referred to or mentioned in the

CASE ASSESSMENT DIRECTION(2012-12585-i). Disclosed to the RESPONDENTS and HRTO-REGISTRAR in the same filed RESPONSE;

“RESPONSE

TO RICHARD HENNESSY ADJUDICATION,

without response from RESPONDENTS,

NOTICE to dismiss matters with

HRTO FILE: 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I,

and without any resolution of my stolen property being returned to my person to enable full access to public medical services, public goods and public services or RESTITUTION of DIGNITY

Morgan v . Herman Miller Canada Inc ., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII )

Marineland of Canada Inc ., 2005 HRTO 30,

“JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED”

PLEASE STOP PUNISHING MY CHILDREN with denial of PUBLIC goods and service AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT(S. 12); for the unlawful crime of acting within the capacity of a PRIVATE PROSECUTOR (s. 507 C.C.) and endeavoring to enforce our beloved CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA”

[35] The following was asserted in the RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS…(2012-12585-I);

“TAKE NOTE: There has been no response from the respondents, which implies that they except all my allegations as the unchallenged truth or the unchallenged factual evidence for HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I,and 2014-19377-I. I am willing to and would life to testify under oath to assist the court in its finding of facts of all the above matters to render a fair and just decisions.

If it is the case that the above matters are not in the correct jurisdiction, I respectfully request that the same matters be transferred to the correct jurisdiction to affect DUE PROCESS OF LAW for the just determination of a judicial matters HRTO FILE: 2012-12585-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I,and 2014-19377-I. Note that I have filed some of the same matters to the Federal Human Rights is which they have responded as having no jurisdiction for the matters.

According to employees of the Federal Human Rights Commission and according to Mr Richard Hennessy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, they both do not have jurisdiction for the two matters which Mr. Richard Hennessy is endeavouring to dismiss: AGAIN, PLEASE TRANSFEREE ALL MATTER’S Mr. Richard Hennessy has given notice to dismissed to the proper jurisdiction, if my CHILDREN and I as Canadians has the right to the rights given in the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE! Does the following rights stated below apply to my children and I?

Services

1. Every person has a right to equal treatment …

2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation...

8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Ac

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.R .S .O . 1990, c . H .19,s . 9.

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v . Herman Miller Canada Inc ., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII )

Marineland of Canada Inc ., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination

Morgan v . Herman Miller Canada Inc ., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII )

Is an act of reprisal in response to an unfounded human rights complaint grounds for an award of damages under the OntarioHuman Rights Code? According to a recent decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario,Morgan v . Herman Miller Canada Inc ., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII ), the answer is yes.{...}

The Duty to Address and Respond

In reaching the decision that Mr. Morgan had been discriminated against, Adjudicator Debané made reference to the 2005 decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario inLaskowskav . Marineland of Canada Inc ., 2005 HRTO 30, which discusses the obligation of an employer to adequately address and respond to allegations of Code-related discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

Adjudicator Debané then went on to hold that an applicant need not prove that discrimination has occurred to benefit from the protection of section 8 of the Human Rights Code; the applicant must only have a genuinely held the belief that the respondents were infringing his Code rights. (See paragraph 87.)

Section 8 of the Ontario Human Rights Code provides that:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act{...}

Based on that rule of law, Adjudicator Debané found that the decision to terminate Mr. Morgan’s employment was made as a reprisal because he had claimed his Code rights by raising issues of harassment and discrimination in his workplace. Adjudicator Debané also found that the employer failed to adequately address, or take any steps in response to, Mr. Morgan’s, albeit unfounded, allegations of discrimination and harassment. On this second point Adjudicator Debané wrote that:

Instead of dealing with the applicant’s allegations in an appropriate manner, the company chose to terminate the applicant’s employment.{...} Although reprisal need only be one factor in the decision to terminate the applicant in order to find that the applicant was terminated contrary to his right to be free from reprisal under the Code, in my view the reasons in the respondent’s termination letter were otherwise pre-textual. (Para. 108)” (ParSean Bawden —Labour Pains )”

HUMAN RIGHTS PREAMBLE: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law…”

Pursuant to ONTARIO CIVIL PRACTICE;

“…the Ontario Court of Appeal has made it clear in numerous cases that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plenary trial remains the mode for the resolution of disputes and Rule 20 does not represent court reform, or the reform of the adversary system, in disguise{...}

A motion judge ought not lose sight of her or his narrow role in determining whether a genuine factual issue exist, and must be careful not to assume the role of a trial judge by adjudicating any genuine factual issues which do exist. The motions judge ought never assess credibility, weight the evidence, or find the facts, all of which are functions reserved to the trial judge. However, an issue of fact must relate to material fact; otherwise it cannot give rise to a “genuine issue for trial.” Moreover, merely raising an issue of credibility will not be an answer to a motion for summary judgment; the issue of credibility must be material and genuine:...“

(page 543, ONTARIO CIVIL PRACTICE 2009, THOMSON CARSWELL)

{...}

COMPLAINT HRTO FILE: 20114-19377-I

[79] Good, Services, and Facilities (Form 1-C) (form1,21-question 6)

When you chooses goods and services as your area of complaint and fill out FORM 1, it directs you to fill our FORM 1-C, where you choose POLICE SERVICES as the area in GOODS AND SERVICES that you are complaining about.

Police services (FORM 1-C, C1)

{...}

COMPLAINT HRTO FILE: 20114-19377-I

[79] Good, Services, and Facilities (Form 1-C) (form1,21-question 6)

Police services (FORM 1-C, C1)

[80] HRTO FILE: 2014-19680-I PLEASE STOP CHANGING MY PREMISE!

Please transfer to a court of competent jurisdiction for a just determination.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT ON DENIAL OF COURT SERVICES WHICH ARE STILL PENDING (certified reproduction or production of evidence as witness by the court in accordance with the EVIDENCE ACT, the COURT REPORTERS sworn oath to give equal TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES, and the COURT REPORTER’S ACT; order of SOME CERTIFIED transcripts ARE STILL PENDING, some TRANSCRIPTS(C 56718) payed for and received or not certified in accordance of the laws and rule of evidence, and REQUISITIONS(c 56718) were not responded to) (s. 1). - Pursuant to Mr Richard Hennessy (Registrar) who seem to be acting in the capacity of a lawyer for RESPONDENTS, who are not honourable enough to respond to serious allegations of concern to the PUBLIC GOOD;

“Re: Wayne Ferron v. Ministry of the Attorney General (Court Service Division), John Gerretsen, Arlene Gorewicz, Santiago Orbe and Joy Webster

Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of an Application, HRTO file number 2014-19680-I, filed by Wayne Ferron on December 19, 2014.

The HRTO has reviewed the Application. It appears the Application is outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction because:

• while your response to question #7 of the Application alleges that the last incident of discrimination you experienced occurred on or about January 2, 2014, a review of your Application indicates that it is either not clear what incident of discrimination is alleged to have occurred on this date or how the incident described as occurring on that date constitutes an incident of discrimination within the meaning of the Code....”

PLEASE SEE APPENDIX: A

Janzen v. Platy enterprises ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1252, 1989 CanLII 97 (SCC)

Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v . Herman Miller Canada Inc ., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII )

Marineland of Canada Inc ., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination”

REPRISALS (for all matters - HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I):

[81] For loving the Law and endeavouring to act with in the capacity of a Private Prosecutor and in accordance with Section. 507 of the CRIMINAL CODE of CANADA. In addition to LEGAL BULLYING and harassment after I became hated and despised in legal circles. Now I am just left to die with no legal rights, no human rights, no access to EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefits entitlements, no access to Public goods and services, and no access to full medical services.

Services

1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.R .S .O . 1990, c . H .19,s . 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1); 2012, c. 7, s. 1.

Reprisals

8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.R .S .O . 1990, c . H .19,s . 8.

Infringement prohibited

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.R .S .O . 1990, c . H .19,s . 9.

Act binds Crown

47. (1) This Act binds the Crown and every agency of the Crown.R .S .O . 1990, c . H .19,s . 47 (1).

1) DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2) DENIAL OF DIGNITY AND WORTH OF A HUMAN BEING

3) DENIAL OF LEGAL RIGHTS

4) DENIAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES

5) DENIAL OF EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS ENTITLEMENTS

6) DENIAL OF FULL ACCESS TO MEDICAL SERVICES

7) DIMINISHING OF MY CHILDREN RIGHT TO A FAIR AND EQUAL ACCESS TO EDUCATION

8) DENIAL OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND HAPPINESS

9) LEGAL BULLYING

[82] DISCRIMINATION (discrimination by distinction for all matters - HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I):

I am relying on the following legislation;

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

Services

Reprisals

Infringement prohibited

9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part.R .S .O . 1990, c . H .19,s . 9.

Act binds Crown

47. (1) This Act binds the Crown and every agency of the Crown.R .S .O . 1990, c . H .19,s . 47 (1).

Police Service Act:

Declaration of principles

Police services shall be provided throughout Ontario in accordance with the following principles:

1. The need to ensure the safety and security of all persons and property in Ontario.

2. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code.

R.S.Q., chapter C-12

Charter of human rights and freedoms

Exercise of rights and freedoms.

9.1. In exercising his fundamental freedoms and rights, a person shall maintain a proper regard for democratic values, public order and the general well-being of the citizens of Québec.

CHAPTER I.1

RIGHT TO EQUAL RECOGNITION AND EXERCISE OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Discrimination forbidden.

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

Discrimination defined.

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

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

Harassment.

10.1. No one may harass a person on the basis of any ground mentioned in section 10.

1982, c. 61, s. 4.

Discriminatory notice forbidden.

11. No one may distribute, publish or publicly exhibit a notice, symbol or sign involving discrimination, or authorize anyone to do so.

1975, c. 6, s. 11.

Discrimination in juridical acts.

12. No one may, through discrimination, refuse to make a juridical act concerning goods or services ordinarily offered to the public.

1975, c. 6, s. 12.

Clause forbidden.

13. No one may in a juridical act stipulate a clause involving discrimination.

______

Human Rights Code

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19

Constructive discrimination

11. (1) A right of a person under Part I is infringed where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not discrimination on a prohibited ground but that results in the exclusion, restriction or preference of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and of whom the person is a member, except where,

(a) the requirement, qualification or factor is reasonable and bona fide in the circumstances; or

(b) it is declared in this Act, other than in section 17, that to discriminate because of such ground is not an infringement of a right.R .S .O . 1990, c . H .19,s . 11 (1).

Discrimination because of association

12. A right under Part I is infringed where the discrimination is because of relationship, association or dealings with a person or persons identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination.R .S .O . 1990, c . H .19,s . 12.

DISTINCTION:

GOODS AND SERVICES DISTINCTION

[83] PERMISSIBLE THEFT - Officer Pekeski(2261) and Ms. Joanne Stuart are allowed to steal my property and continue to keep the same stolen property without the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW or the application of the CRIMINAL CODE being applied against there crimes. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission.

[84] CRIMINAL CODES DOES NOT PROTECT ME PROTECTION - Officer Pekeski(2261) and Ms. Joanne Stuart are allowed to steal my property and continue to keep the same stolen property without the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW or the application of the CRIMINAL CODE being applied against there crimes. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission.

[85] PARAMOUNTCY DOES NOT APPLY TO ME - Officer Pekeski(2261) and Ms. Joanne Stuart are allowed to steal my property and continue to keep the same stolen property without the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW or the application of the CRIMINAL CODE being applied against there crimes. Furthermore, when I tried to prosecute them, a provincial legislation was used to declare me as a vexative litigant; and defeat my prosecutions, take away all my legal rights, and take away my Human Rights. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission.

[86] DENIED FULL ACCESS TO MEDICAL SERVICES - Because Officer Pekeski (2261) was allowed to steel from my property (wallet, ID, ETC…), and continue to keep my stolen property (wallet, ID, ETC…), which is a requirement for access to public services. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission.

[87] DENIED FULL ACCESS TO GOODS AND SERVICES -Because Officer Pekeski (2261) was allowed to steel from my property (wallet, ID, ETC…), and continue to keep my stolen property (wallet, ID, ETC…), which is a requirement for access to public services. I am the only one in Ontario that I know that is experiencing the aforesaid. It seems as though THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL is protecting Ms. Joanne Stuart and Officer Pekeski(2261) from the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW byway of an act of omission…”

[36] The following is the same articulation in explaining discrimination in the RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS(2012-12585-i);

DISCRIMINATION BY the DISTINCTION

of SYSTEMIC RACISM or SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION:

LINKAGE FACTORS

1. RACIAL PROFILING

2. SYSTEMIC RACISM or SYSTEMIC DISCRIMINATION

3. YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES - ALPHA FILE

4. PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES - ALPHA FILE

5. TORONTO REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES - ALPHA FILES (THERE are two occurrences of trying to deny me Police Services-TAKE NOTICE: I was almost run over by someone whom was in the process of contravening the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT, and all that I seem to being told is that my life is worthless, I have no human rights, I have no legal rights and HRTO has no jurisdiction to return my dignity to my person - that Division 13 of the TORONTO POLICE SERVICES was served first with the initial filing of the COMPLAINT against Officer Green on denial of police services which is contrary to the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, POLICE SERVICE ACT, CRIMINAL CODE, and CHARTER. tHERE STILL HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE OR OFFICER GREEN, NO INVESTIGATION, NO DISCLOSURE OF INVESTIGATION BY HRTO (i have requested disclosure, no response) The RESPONDENTS has had my material since Nov 2013, and has still not responded.))

6. MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES(Probation Officer assaulted me, then along with her college and maliciously procured legal documents to charge me, summon for fingerprinting, attempted to imprison me for 15 days byway of manufactured evidence after the probation period granting the MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, authority over me was expired) - FILE or FILES

BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL(PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION)- DOCTOR JEFFREY HANDLER SLANDER ET AL. “[214] The Police Officers (Public Servants) Brutalize me, lied to me, deceived me, scared the crap out of me, and traumatize me; it is on this basis, on this foundation and within this atmosphere I have been profiled as a violent psychotic mentally disease person, a danger to society, a danger to myself and threatening the health and wellbeing of others.

[215] So the law enforcement proceed vicariously through Doctors and Brampton Form 1. to give you a psychiatric assessment to manufacture our mental profile or Brand you as mentally Incompetent, thereby erasing all your Rights and freedom within this society. The ones in position of public authority should know or aught to have known that the aforementioned apparent actions is more inline with the actions of a Police State and a crime against society at large.”

8. INTERPOL (information is shared with international members to facilitate crime fighting beyond a NATION state borders)

9. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT( according to Officer in charge, information in ALPHA FILE is sent to Federal Government)

MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL for Ontario - possible from numerous files from some of its many sub departments

LINKAGE

OR APPLICANT PROFILE IN ALPHA FILE

1. John Gerretsen (PRIVATE PROSECUTION), (Attorney General [20 Oct 2011 – 25 March 2014]), choosing not to enforce the CRIMINAL CODE of CANADA , with respect to Officer Pekeski (2261) theft of my personal proper(HEALTH CARD etc.) or the prosecution of Ms. Stuart his agent and representative for her criminal actions ).

2. Ms. Joanne Stuart(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), who stole my FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST in addition to committing legal fraud, and misleading at least one Justice and the COURT OF APPEAL court;

3. SALVATION ARMY, and To the REGION OF PEEL(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to 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

4. PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect my COLOUR OF RIGHT, respect the CRIMINAL CODE, and enforce the RULE OF LAW, in the the prompt return of all my belongings stolen or confiscated or whatever the case may be, by their agent subordinate Officer Pekeski(2261) whom disclosed to my person the false identity of Officer Perkins(2261) in addition to the PEEL REGIONAL POLICE disclosing his identity as Officer Perkins(2261), when his legal name is Officer Pekeski(2261).

5. YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect THE CRIMINAL CODE and enforce the RULE OF LAW;

6. TORONTO REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(PRIVATE PROSECUTION), refusal to respect THE CRIMINAL CODE and enforce the RULE OF LAW;

7. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL EAST REGION)-REGISTRAR and the failure to return promptly the evidence(AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON C51190) I disclosed to Your Worship Justice Malik for my field information against Geoffery Farday; I have exercised my colour of right in requesting the same Affidavit evidence to no avail.

8. Intoxication on Alcohol above the allowable limit while driving (slander/false fact)

9. Drug Addict/consumed drugs with an inference of crack cocaine (slander / false fact)

10. Violent (slander/false fact-

11. Assaultive (slander/false fact)

12. Mentally Diseases (slander/false fact)

13. Criminal Convic (NOT LEGALLY EXISTING AFFIANT B. HIRD: False oath and misleading a judicial officer to defeat the course of justice. Information 07-02500 filed by Police Officer B. Hird who does not lawfully exist)

14. Vexatious (PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION: Private Prosecutor of those with self immunity above the law. All my legal right/human rights was stolen in all of ONTARIO by BLG(Katherine Kirkpatrick), via fraudulent means and based on a fallacy in her arguments. JUSTICE ANDRE'S ORDERS take all of my legal rights (HUMANITY) away in all of ONTARIO, by way of PROVINCIAL legislation overcoming FEDERAL legislation(PARAMOUNTCY), and PRIVATE PROSECUTION of people in high public office who believe they are above the law, immune to the law, and does not have to answer to the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA for alleged criminal offenses. In short they serves THE LAW, but they are not subject to THE LAW. Because of my just private prosecutions (Section 507.1 and 504).)

15. Frivolous (PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION: Private Prosecutor of those with self immunity above the- The JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE); I was refused legal services provided to the public to affect LEGAL RIGHTS in giving full answer for alleged crimes(Offence Number: 8271152B ) I was charge within the Province of Ontario without reasonable cause or articulated legal justification. I was discriminated against with systemic prejudice, called “CRAZY GUY..” by YOUR WORSHIP at first instant without the same HONOURABLE JUSTICE OF THE PIECE KNOWING me or possessing personal knowledge of me, in addition to being defamed with slander by YOUR WORSHIP whom was seized with my AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B), in front of the administrative staff and public in the SAME INTAKE OFFICE. The aforesaid was not only discrimination by distinction without lawful cause, but also conducted in secrecy, and also enforced in secrecy while participants willfully concealed their identities from my person even though they are required not to do so(OPEN COURT POLICY).)

16. PRIVATE PROSECUTOR (PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION:arrested, assault, slandered, called names, falsely imprisoned, VICTIM OF THEFT, convicted without notice or trial, and being punished with reprisals for trying to prosecute those whom I witness contravening the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA in the territorial jurisdiction of Ontario and in accordance with section 507 of the Criminal Code and Supreme Court case law case law and section 15 of the Charter).

FATHER (A FATHER THAT'S A MOTHER: with full custody of one of my child-Forced to be separated from child and not being able to provide for them, while being requested by ONTARIO WORKS to sue the mother of my other three children)

1. Blackman (VISIBLE MINORITY WHO HAVE JUST ACCEPTED RACISM AS A PART OF NORMAL EVERYDAY LIFE: who has been pulled over many times and then Officers asserting they smell alcohol when I don’t EVEN DRINK, or asking me for drug dealers when I DON’T CONSUME DRUGS. Or a group of young white males driving by in a ford pickup truck and calling me “nigger” for who knows what. This has been my experience since I was small.)

2. INFERIOR EDUCATION- (SYSTEMIC RACIAL TARGETING by the ONTARIO GOVERNMENT to be plucked out of ELEMENTARY SCHOOL at a tender age (grade 5) and sent to a inferior highschool (W.J. FENTON S. S.) to learn how to cook, clean, weld, and operator machines; but I did self study at the library by myself. Though myself math, physics, philosophy, and the unteachable thin of thinking, just to find out that I was smarter or as smart as the other children in my same elementary school. BILL DAVIS signed the certificate for ONTARIO SCHOLAR and signed the CERTIFICATE FOR THE GOLD MEDAL IN ALL ONTARIO BOXING. Now the BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE which is named after him abuse me by way of court service workers, JUSTICE CALL ME NAMES(‘CRAZY GUY’), ASSAULT ME, arrest me, falsely imprison me, threaten to call the police to throw me out of the courtroom and courthouse for HAVE TOO MUCH EVIDENCE and just exercising my rights to PRIVATELY PROSECUTE CRIMES to which I have personal knowledge and is the main witness.)

VICTIM OF LEGAL BULLYING (PUNISHMENT FOR PRIVATE PROSECUTION: the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE INTAKE OFFICE, at the ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE (A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE); I was refused legal services provided to the public to affect LEGAL RIGHTS in giving full answer for alleged crimes(Offence Number: 8271152B ) I am charged with in the Province of Ontario without reasonable cause or articulated legal justification. I was discriminated against with systemic prejudice, called “CRAZY GUY..” by YOUR WORSHIP at first instant without the same HONOURABLE JUSTICE OF THE PIECE KNOWING me or possessing personal knowledge of me, in addition to being defamed with slander by YOUR WORSHIP whom was seized with my AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON (Court File Number: 3160-8271152B), in front of the administrative staff and public in the SAME INTAKE OFFICE. The aforesaid was not only discrimination by distinction without reasonable cause, but also conducted in secrecy, and also enforced in secrecy while participants willfully concealed their identities from my person even though they are required not to do so(OPEN COURT POLICY). 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 INHUMAINLY 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 ADDRESS 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 DAYTIME, I MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.)”

[37] REPRISALS: (PUNISHMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINTS, CIVIL ACTIONS, OR PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS), The following are some REPRISALS against my person for being a private prosecutor ;

1. the CROWN(Ms.. Krick) being allowed to UNLAWFULLY remove PRIVATE PROSECUTION PUBLIC EVIDENCE (C 58716-INCRIMINATE THE CROWN) from the COA-RECORDS while affection a unwritten restriction of the PUBLIC HAVING ACCESS TO THE SAME PUBLIC FILE without reasonable cause. THERE IS NO EQUALITY IN THE LAW!

2. missing and lost private prosecution public evidence;

3. impeded or restricted access to PRIVATE PROSECUTION public evidence;

4. harassment while filing required court documents for PRIVATE PROSECUTION;

5. unlawful imprisonment while attempting to file PRIVATE PROSECUTION information;

6. conviction without notice or fair hearing;

7. BARRED FROM DEFENSE OR OBTAINING JUSTICE: and finally stopping me from exercising my legal rights by banning me from all courts in Ontario, taking away all my legal rights in Ontario by fraudulent means, and in addition to impeding or restricting my HUMAN RIGHTS;

8. COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO refuse to deal with the matter;

9. SUPREME COURT OF CANADA refuse to deal with the matter;

10. now my EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE benefits are impeded, I have no social services rights, and access to goods, services (Health services, Police Services etc. are impeded), which are enjoyed by other CANADIANS have vanished. All I have access to now is SECOND HAND SMOKE, DISEASE AFFLICTING THE HOMELESS, OUT OF THE COLD SHELTERS, and SOUP KITCHENS.

[38] CASE LAW-REPRISALS:

1. Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v . Herman Miller Canada Inc ., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII )
Marineland of Canada Inc ., 2005 HRTO 30,
Colliard v . Toronto (City ) -2013 hrto 1587
Dekany v . Durham College - 2014 hrto 188
Griffey v . Drs . Paul and John Rekai Centres -2010 hrto 1942
Kim v . Camenietzki -2013 hrto 1590
Lauzon v . Ontario Provincial Police -2011 hrto 1404
Marineland of Canada Inc ., 2005 HRTO 30- 2005 hrto 30-1
McConaghie v . Systemgroup Consulting Inc . - 2014 hrto 295
Morgan v . Herman Miller Canada Inc . -2013 hrto 650
Ontario Public Service Employees Union -2013 canlii 26527
Tearne v . Windsor (City ) -2011 hrto 2294
Zaromitidis v . Toronto Police Services Board -2014 hrto 1296
HRTO -FREEDOMOFINFORMATIONREQUEST
Citation: Bajouco v. McMaster 2011 HRTO 569

Morgan v . Herman Miller Canada Inc ., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII )

Marineland of Canada Inc ., 2005 HRTO 30,

“Employee Awarded Human Rights Damages Without Discrimination

Morgan v . Herman Miller Canada Inc ., 2013 HRTO 650 (CanLII )

The Duty to Address and Respond

Section 8 of the Ontario Human Rights Code provides that:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act{...}

[39] CASE LAW-HRTO/POLICE SERVICES:

1. Morgan v. Toronto Police Services Board 2014hrto1548

2. Toronto Police Services Board 2013hrto1298

3. K.M. v. Kodama 2014hrto526

Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board 2013hrto1298-1
Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19

[40] FREEDOM OF INFORMATION/DISCLOSURE

1. Wozenilek v. The Book Shelf of Guelph Limited

2. 2008hrto454-1

3. 2012hrto2307-1

4. disclosure-freedom of information - Toronto Police Services Board and Christopher Fitkin 2009hrto1220

5. disclosure-Peel Regional Police Services - 2006hrto18

6. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - C.M. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board 2012hrto2307

7. freedom of information- Ihasz v. Ontario (Revenue) 2014hrto376

8. INFORMATION-Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities 2015canlii24834.pdf

[41] FAIRNESS, JUSTNESS, EXPEDITIOUS/RULE A3.1

1. M.K. v. 1217993 Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1362

FAIRNESS-Kassian v. The Attorney General of Canada, 2014 ONSC 844
FAIRNESS-RULE A3.1: Singh v. Rainbow Circle Co-operative Inc., 2014 HRTO 528
FAIRNESS-RULE A3 1 Tsehai v. Durham District School Board, 2015 HRTO 616

[42] NATURAL JUSTICE/PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

1. Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc

2. R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39

3. R. v. Thorburn, 2010 ABQB 390

4. R. v. Labadie, 2011 ONCA 22

5. R. v. Wells, 2012 ABQB 77

6. reference re YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT (P.E.I),

7. CERTIFIED COPY OF Jason Gorda's RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M61/12)

8. Nelles v. Ontario, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170

9. CASE LAW- Law Society of Upper Canada v. Raymond Li, Docket: 2004-00034

10. CASE LAW- Law Society of Upper Canada v. Raymond Li, Docket: 2004-00040

11. R. V. Little john & Tirabasso, [1978], 41 C.C.C. (2d) 161, “this court accept as self-evident the proposition that a person charged with a serious offence is under a grave disadvantage if, for any reason, he is deprived of the assistance of competent counsel:” see p. 173:,

12. R. v. Rowbotham

13. R. v. McGibbon

14. NIKE CANADA LTD. and NIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD. - and - JANE DOE and JOHN DOE ET. AL.(T-1636-99)

15. VIDÉOTRON LTÉE et al. and NESTAR COMMUNICATIONS INC. et al.(2003 FCA 56)

16. R. v. Caron, 2011 SCC 5

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFERE (RULE 14.2)

1.) Laba v. Windsor (City), 2009 HRTO 382 (CanLII), retrieved on 2015-06-17

2.) Chivers v. National Steel Car Ltd.

3.) Oram v. Abitibi Consolidated Company of Canada

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

[43] THEFT

1. R. v. C.C., [2012] N.J. No. 121 (P.C.)

2. R. v. Reid, [2012] N.J. No. 164 (P.C.)

3. R. v. Prowse 1998 CanLII 18024

4. R v Fulcher, 2007 ABCA 381 at para 30

("[A]bsent truly exceptional circumstances, the sentencing goals of deterrence and denunciation demand a sentence of imprisonment rather than the imposition of a conditional sentence for crimes of embezzlement or theft by an employee.")

WITNESS LIST:

[44]

Rhondda Margetts Final COURT ORDER ON CV-12 -71600

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West region)

Provincial Courts Civil Filing Offices

Brampton Superior Court of Justice

7755 Hurontario St, Brampton, ON, L6W 4T1

905-456-4744

NOTE: Please bring a copy of CV 12-71600 FINAL ORDER and an official copy of CV 12-71600 FINAL ORDER & CV 13-1060 FINAL ORDER with signature in blue ink, which should have been disclosed and served on Wayne Ferron in accordance with law and judicial policy, but was never done.

[45]

Cindy Kreiger ONTARIO WORKS - WORKER(CASE WORKER# 353)

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL

10 Peel Centre Drive,

Brampton, ON, L6T 4B9

(905) 791 – 7800

NOTE: Please bring a list of all the document Wayne Ferron disclosed to you personally, for ONTARIO WORKS.

[46]

Paul Richards HRTO-did not accept HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT for filing nor pushed sam complaint to hearing (July 11, 2011) HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

655 Bay Street, 14th floor

Toronto, ON, M7A 2A3

416 326 1312

1 866 598 0322

hrto.tdpo@ontario.ca

NOTE: Please bring a copy of the complaint and a copy of the HRTO responding letter with your name and signature.




[47]

Blessing Anyanwa SHELTER SUPERVISOR

PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTER

2500 Cawthra Rd, Mississauga, ON, L5A 2X3

905-281-1272

NOTE: Please bring a copy of the email to the LAWYER of the salvation army, which makes a statement concerning the reasons why the Applicant was not admitted to the REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER at 35 Cawthra Rd, Mississauga, from September 1, 2012 to September 5, 2012.




[48]

Nicole Arbour ONTARIO WORKS - WORKER(? )

PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTER

2500 Cawthra Rd, Mississauga, ON, L5A 2X3

905-281-1272

NOTE: Please bring a list of all the necessary documents you personally collected from Wayne Ferron for ONTARIO WORKS and a copy of the EVICTION letter for Wayne Ferron from the REGIONAL OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER.

[49]

Rudo Chiyangwa SALVATION ARMY COUNSELOR

PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTER

2500 Cawthra Rd, Mississauga, ON, L5A 2X3

905-281-1272

[50]

David Misir -IPC case Manager

Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario

2 Bloor Street East, Suite 1400

Toronto, Ontario M4W 1A8, Canada

email: info@ipc.on.ca.

Toronto Area: 416-326-3333

Long Distance: 1-800-387-0073 (within Ontario)

TDD/TTY: 416-325-7539

Fax 416-325-9195

NOTE: Please bring a copy of your letter to Wayne Ferron and your letter to ONTARIO WORKS concerning Wayne Ferron freedom of information request.

[51]

Harry Boom SALVATION ARMY COUNSELOR

PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTER

2500 Cawthra Rd, Mississauga, ON, L5A 2X3

905-281-1272

NOTE: Please bring name and contact of ONTARIO WORK’S COUNCILOR who worked as partner with you and witness the events in question.

NOTE: Please bring copy of Eviction letter for Wayne Ferron, and documentation proving Wayne Ferron was not receiving ONTARIO WORKS financial assistance, and the official documented reason for the meeting of the evocation of Wayne Ferron.

[52]

ONTARIO WORKS WORKER/works as Harry Boom’s partner (Policy of at least two person speaking to a any homeless client at all time, so their is always a witness to events.

[53]

Ms. Forgol Intake Clerk

PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTER

2500 Cawthra Rd, Mississauga, ON, L5A 2X3

905-281-1272

[54]

Ms. Tiffany Intake Clerk

PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTER

2500 Cawthra Rd, Mississauga, ON, L5A 2X3

905-281-1272

[55]

Allison Waltho Shelter Supervisor

PEEL REGION RESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY SHELTER

2500 Cawthra Rd, Mississauga, ON, L5A 2X3

905-281-1272

NOTE: Please bring the documents detailing why you gave the final order to intake Wayne Ferron into the REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER, just to allow Mr. Harry Boom to evict or discharge Wayne Ferron from the same homeless facility two weeks later.

[56]

Mark Wilson Manager

STREET TO HOME

Toronto Shelter Support and Housing administration

Brampton Superior Court of Justice

124 Peter St., ON, M5V 2H3

TEL: 416-392-0090

FAX: 416 338 4760

[57]

Anthony Singh Assistant Manager

STREET TO HOME

Toronto Shelter Support and Housing administration

Brampton Superior Court of Justice

124 Peter St., ON, M5V 2H3

TEL: 416-392-0090

FAX: 416 338 4760

[58]

Toby Druce FREE DENTAL CARE (STREET TO HOME)

STREET TO HOME

Toronto Shelter Support and Housing administration

Brampton Superior Court of Justice

124 Peter St., ON, M5V 2H3

TEL: 416-392-0090

FAX: 416 338 4760

[58.5]

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

(Officer 3424, and Officer 3470)

[59]

Wayne Ferron Applicant /

WITNESS WITH PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

HOMELESS VAGABOND

TORONTO, ONTARIO

[59.5]

i.) TANYA GALLOWAY

ii.) ANN C. DINNERT

iii.) 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

tanya.galloway@peelregion.ca, john.gescher@peelregion.ca

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

NO FINAL ORDER: CV 12-71600(civil matter)

[60] 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(1/2) 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.

[61] 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 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 (Wayne Ferron), they all fail to respond and failed to disclosed, and serve the FINAL ORDER FOR CV 12-71600. Which was Appeal to the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA under file number SCC 35821, while it would seem the RESPONDENTS were not acting in “GOOD FATE!”

[62] CV 13-1060 is a separate and distinct application filed by Ms Kathrine Kirkpatrick(BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(“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.

[63] Which intern was Appeal to the SUPREME COUT OF CANADA under file number SCC 35821.

[64] 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 or even as existing.

[65] 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 voidable 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 Judicial Officer who was engaged in a judicial function.

[66] 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!”

HRTO PROCESS

[67] 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.

[68] Pursuant to HRTO-Registrar’s letter titled, NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION(2012-12585-I), which state the following;

“Subject: Second Notice of Incomplete Application

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of your submissions in response to the Notice of Incomplete Application of October 18, 2012. However, the Application remains incomplete and cannot be processed by HRTO at this time for the following reasons:…”

( HRTO letter for 2012-12585-I, December 10, 2012 )

[69] Pursuant to HRTO-Registrar’s letter titled, NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION(2012-12585-I), which state the following;

“Subject: Failure to Respond to Notice of Incomplete Application

On December 10, 2012 the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) sent you a letter to notify you that your Application was incomplete and could not be processed. You were asked to respond to specific questions outlined in the Notice of Incomplete Application by January 7, 2013. As of today’s date, the requested missing information has not been provided to the HRTO.

Attached you will find a copy of the HRTO’s December 10, 2012 Notice and a list of the questions you are required to answer. Please return the requested information as outlined to the HRTO by January 29, 2013. If the HRTO does not receive the requested information by this date, your…”

( HRTO letter for 2012-12585-I, January 29, 2013 )

[70] 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)

[71] HRTO 2012-12585-I was DEFERED or DELAYED on 13 September 2013, at the request of the respondents with the added benefit of not giving a full response.

“

HRTO FILE: 2012-12585-I

July 17, 2014 Via Mail and E-mail

Wayne Ferron 1-18 Earlscourt Ave. Toronto, ON M6E 4A6 wayneferron@gmail.com

Re: Wayne Ferron v. The Regional Municipality of Peel and the Governing Council of Salvation Army in Canada

Subject: DEFFERRED APPLICATION – Advise of Status

On September 13, 2013 the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) issued Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 1544 deferring this Application pending the completion of a civil matter, pursuant to Rule 14 of its Rules of Procedure.

{…}

Sincerely,

Richard Hennessy

Registrar

cc. John Gescher (via e-mail)

Blair McCreadie”

TAKE NOTICE: That the Applicant is living as a HOMELESS VAGOBOND and do not have access to all the documents for HRTO 2012-12585-I; hence the Applicant requested disclosure of information and access to case files, so that he may know his case and give full answer. HRTO has not honored nor completed the APPLICANT’S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST HRTO 2012-12585-I et al, and the same request has been appeal to the INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSION under the a status of “DEEM REFUSAL.”

[72] 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.”

[73] 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…”

[74] 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…”

[75] 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.

[76] 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.”

[77] 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 theFreedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 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

[78] 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!”

[79] 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!”

[80] 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!”

[81] 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!”

[82] 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!”

[83] 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!”

[84] 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!”

[85] 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!”

[86] 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!”

[87] 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!”

[88] 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!”

[89] 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

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

“

[90] 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?”

[91] The SALVATION ARMY and ONTARIO-WORK, for the second time ASPER the IPC directions, the Applicant 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), and 380(1) the CRIMINAL CODE of CANADA.

[92] REQUISTION FOR DISCLOUSER…(2012-12585-I ET AL) was filed on or about March 9, 2015, which states as followings;

“I Wayne Ferron, require the following;

1. any information obtained by the Commission in the course

of an investigation for HRTO FILE : 2012-1258-I ;

2. any information obtained by the Commission in the course

of an investigation for HRTO FILE : 2015-19792-I;

3. any information obtained by the Commission in the course

of an investigation for HRTO FILE : 2014-19681-I;

4. any information obtained by the Commission in the course

of an investigation for HRTO FILE : 2014-19680-I;

5. any information obtained by the Commission in the course

of an investigation for HRTO FILE : 2014-19377-I.”

“

RE: IPC REQUEST-HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I

Inbox

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

Mar 9

to HRTO-Registrar

REQUISITION FOR INFORMATION DISCLOSURE

FOR THE FOLLOWING;

HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I

WITH RESPECT TO INVESTIGATIONS AND FINDING OF FACTS

FOR THE ABOVE MATTERS

(“ any information obtained by the Commission in the course of an investigation”)

Attachments area

Preview attachment HRTO-FREEDOMOFINFORMATIONREQUEST.pdf

HRTO-Registrar (MAG) <hrto.registrar@ontario.ca>

Mar 13

to me

Dear applicant,

To make a request for information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, you must complete the attached form and follow the directions as outlined in the form.

Pursuant to Rule 1.12 of the HRTO's Rules of Procedure, all correspondence must be directed to the Registrar at hrto.registrar@ontario.ca, and copied to the other parties. Thank-you, Lina Prochilo
Case Processing Officer Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Tel: 416-326-1312 \| hrto.registrar@ontario.ca
Social Justice Tribunals Ontario		Tribunaux de justice sociale Ontario
Providing fair and accessible dispute resolution		Pour une justice accessible et équitable
http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca
NOTICE: Confidential message which may be privileged. If received in error, please delete the message and advise me by return email. Thank you. AVIS: Message confidentiel dont le contenu peut être privilégié. Si reçu par erreur, veuillez supprimer ce message et aviser l'expéditeur par retour de courriel. Merci.

From: Wayne Ferron [mailto:leegalpoet@gmail.com]
Sent: March-09-15 3:27 PM
To: HRTO-Registrar (MAG)
Subject: RE: IPC REQUEST-HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I

Attachments area

Preview attachment 0 Notice - Fees for Processing FOI Requests General updated contact.pdf

“

[93] REQUISTION FOR DISCLOUSER…(2012-12585-I ET AL) was filed on or about March 9, 2015, and the HRTO REGISTRA, sent a response in which it asserted;

“Notice Regarding Fees and the Processing of Requests for Information made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act General Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests

General FOI requests must be made in writing and must be accompanied by a $5.00 application fee made payable to the Minister of Finance (Ontario).

General requests should be made using the Tribunal’s FOI Access Request form (see attached).

A search request cannot be processed without payment of the $5.00 application fee.”

“RE: IPC REQUEST-HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I

Inbox

Wayne Ferron

Mar 9

REQUISITION FOR INFORMATION DISCLOSURE FOR THE FOLLOWING; HRTO FILE: 2012-125...

HRTO-Registrar (MAG) <hrto.registrar@ontario.ca>

Mar 13

to me

Dear applicant,

To make a request for information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, you must complete the attached form and follow the directions as outlined in the form.

Pursuant to Rule 1.12 of the HRTO's Rules of Procedure, all correspondence must be directed to the Registrar at hrto.registrar@ontario.ca, and copied to the other parties. Thank-you, Lina Prochilo
Case Processing Officer Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Tel: 416-326-1312 \| hrto.registrar@ontario.ca
Social Justice Tribunals Ontario		Tribunaux de justice sociale Ontario
Providing fair and accessible dispute resolution		Pour une justice accessible et équitable
http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca
NOTICE: Confidential message which may be privileged. If received in error, please delete the message and advise me by return email. Thank you. AVIS: Message confidentiel dont le contenu peut être privilégié. Si reçu par erreur, veuillez supprimer ce message et aviser l'expéditeur par retour de courriel. Merci.

Attachments area

Preview attachment 0 Notice - Fees for Processing FOI Requests General updated contact.pdf

“

[94] REQUISTION FOR DISCLOUSER…(2012-12585-I ET AL) was filed on or about March 20, 2015, which states as followings;

“attend. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COORDINATOR

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

Mar 20

to HRTO-Registrar

I AM IMPECUNIOUS AND INSOLVENT

SO WHERE AM i GOING TO GET THE MONEY TO GIVE TO YOU?

Attachments area

Preview attachment HRTO-FREEDOMOFINFORMATIONREQUEST.pdf

“

[95] HRTO-FREEDOM OF INFORMATION sent the following in a letter a few days ago in regards to REQUISTION FOR DISCLOUSER…(2012-12585-I ET AL) , which was in a state of “DEEM REFUSAL” and before the INFORMATION AND PRIVICY COMMISSION, and responded to by Kate franklin in the following email;

“FW: Response to your request for HRTO Information - PA15-260

Kate Franklin <Kate.Franklin@ipc.on.ca>

Jun 10 (5 days ago)

to me, Susan

Dear Mr. Ferron

Please find a letter attached from Susan Benger of the Social Justice Tribunals Ontario. I see that there was a typo to your email address in her mailing to you (it was sent to leegalpoet@gmal.com instead of leegalpoet@gmail.com) so I presume you have not received her emails.

You will see that she has responded to your request for records. Please let me know if there are any outstanding issues by replying to this email on or before June 19, 2015.

Yours sincerely,

Kate Franklin | Analyst

Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario

2 Bloor Street East, Suite 1400

Toronto, ON M4W 1A8

Ph (416) 326-0768| Fax (416) 325-9188

TF 1-800-387-0073 | TTY (416) 325-7539

E Kate.Franklin@ipc.on.ca| Web http://www.ipc.on.ca

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and attached material is intended for the use of the individual or institution to which it is addressed and may not be distributed, copied or disclosed to other unauthorized persons. This material may contain confidential or personal information that may be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or the Personal Health Information Protection Act. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify me immediately at the telephone number listed above, and do not print, copy, distribute or disclose it further. Thank you for your co-operation and assistance.

From: Benger, Susan (MAG) [mailto:Susan.Benger@ontario.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 5:09 PM
To: leegalpoet@gmal.com
Cc: Kate Franklin
Subject: Response to your request for HRTO Information

I originally sent this message on Monday May 25, 2015. On Saturday May 30, 2015, I received notification that there were problems delivering this email. Since this is the only contact I have for you, I am re-sending to this email address.

I have enclosed my response to your request for information related to your HRTO applications.

As set out in my response, I apologize for not responding earlier

Susan Benger

Freedom of Information Coordinator

Social Justice Tribunals Ontario

Attachments area

Preview attachment FerronHRTOresponse.pdf

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

Jun 10 (5 days ago)

to Kate

the HRTO-TRIBUNAL HAS RULED AGAINST ALL THE MATTERS THAT THE SAID RECORD WOULD BE USED FOR.

SO, HOW DO i TRAVEL BACK IN TIME?

their HAS ALREADY BEEN A DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE BECAUSE i WAS DENIED THE USE OF THE RECORD FOR THE MATTERS WHICH WERE DISMISSED.

“

[96] The denial of knowledge that there is no information to disclose, and there was no investigation for HRTO 2012-12585-I since September 2012, is this denying the Applicant relevant disclosure under a status of “DEEM REFUSAL,” that would enable the Applicant to know his case, and be fairly informed to empower him to give full answer to the TRIBUNAL; is in essence a denial of NATURAL JUSTIDE (first wing of natural justice).

[97] 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.

[98] 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!

CIVIL MATTER CV 12-71600

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

[100] The CASE ASSESSMENT DIRECTION (2012-12585-i) was received on 13 May 2015, in the following EMAIL;

“

HRTO File Number: 2012-12585-I

Inbox

Suppa, Vincenzo (MAG) <Vincenzo.Suppa@ontario.ca>

May 13

to me, Gurjit.brar, blair.mccreadie

Wayne Ferron

via mail and email: leegalpoet@gmail.com

Gurjit Brar

10 Peel Centre Drive, Suite A

Brampton, Ontario

L6T 4B9

via mail and email: Gurjit.brar@peelregion.ca

Blair McCreadie

Dentons Canada LLP

77 King Street West, Suite 400

TD North Tower, Toronto-Dominion Centre

Toronto, Ontario

M5K 0A1

via mail and email: blair.mccreadie@dentons.com

Re: Ferron v. Peel Region

HRTO File Number: 2012-12585-I

Please find attached a Case Assessment Direction of the Tribunal in this matter, dated May 13, 2015.

Please direct any questions or communications concerning this matter to the Registrar: hrto.registrar@ontario.ca

Sincerely,

Vincenzo Suppa

Adjudicative Support Assistant

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Tel: 416-326-1312 | vincenzo.suppa@ontario.ca

Social Justice Tribunals Ontario Tribunaux de justice sociale Ontario

Providing fair and accessible dispute resolution Pour une justice accessible et équitable

http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca

NOTICE: Confidential message which may be privileged. If received in error, please delete the message and advise me by return email. Thank you.

AVIS: Message confidentiel dont le contenu peut être privilégié. Si reçu par erreur, veuillez supprimer ce message et aviser l'expéditeur par retour de courriel. Merci.

Attachments area

“

[101] 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. Some of them are;

§ Dr. Jeffry Handler

§ Dr. Koczerginski

§ Dr. R Hood

§ Dr. Acharyya

§ Dr. Noorani

§ Mrs Hamilton (Nurse in charge)

§ Mandam Janie(nurse)

§ Et Al.

[102] Requested of RESPONDENTS, 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 has refused or failed to do so.

[103] BLG and Kathrine Kirkpatrick fraudulently procured a VEXACIOUS ORDER (CV 13-1060) for civil matter CV 13-1060, with false evidence and misleading methods while before the Honorable Justice Andrea, 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, and in contravention of PARAMOUNTCY or using PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION to defeat FEDERAL LEGISLATION, and 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!”

[104] 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

[105] As one direct example of the different treatment affecting his dignity, self-worth, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; the applicant was subjected of the 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) for a PRIVATE PROSECUTION.

[106] The allege accuse(Ms. Joanne Stuart), works out of the same Toronto Region Office 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, and unfear regardless of whether this was or was-not the case.

[107] The Applicant(Private Prosecutor) just wants the improper sanitized public evidence back where it belongs, and before the review panel.

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

[108] Pursuant to Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106;

Inspection of files

26. (1) Where the necessary facilities are available, any person may, with supervision and without interfering with the business of the Court, inspect a Court file or annex

Removal of documents from file

(2) Nothing shall be removed from a Court file or annex except

(a) under an order of the Court;

(b) by an officer of the Registry acting in the course of his or her duties; or

Removal of files

(3) Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, no Court file or annex to a Court file shall be removed from the Registry by any person other than

(a) a judge, prothonotary or referee; or

(b) an officer of the Registry acting in the course of his or her duties.

SOR/2002-417, s. 3.

Definition

26.1 (1) In this rule, “appeal” includes an appeal of an order of a prothonotary, an application for leave to appeal and an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Removal of exhibits from file

(2) Subject to subsection (4), exhibits put into evidence shall remain in the Court file either

(a) until the time for an appeal has expired, if no appeal has been taken, or

(b) until the appeal is disposed of, if an appeal has been taken.

SOR/2002-417, s. 4.

[109] Pursuant to RULE 59.02 of RULES OF CIVIL PRACTICE;

ENDORSEMENT BY JUDGE OR OFFICER

(2) Where written reasons are delivered,

(a) in an appellate court, an endorsement is not required;

(b) in any other court, the endorsement may consist of a reference to the reasons,

and a copy of the reasons shall be filed in the court file. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.02 (2).

[110] Pursuant to RULE 59.03 of the RULES OF CIVIL PRACTICE;

PREPARATION AND FORM OF ORDER

Preparation of Draft Formal Order

[111] Pursuant to VIDÉOTRON LTÉE et al. and NESTAR COMMUNICATIONS INC. et al., 2003 FCA 56;

Registry or when the parties are notified of the decision.

{...}

Strong J., in concurring reasons, was also of the view that the time to appeal could not begin to run until the judgment had been entered. At page 218, he made the following remarks:

I do not recognize the handing by the judge to the registrar, not in open court but in his office or perhaps in the street, as a "pronouncing of a decision" within the terms of rule 269.”

[112] Pursuant to NIKE CANADA LTD. and NIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD. - and -JANE DOE and JOHN DOE et al., T-1636-99 on page 4;

“ORDER

UPON PLAINTIFFS" EX PARTE MOTION made on September 27, 1999, for

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Commencement and Term of Order

[113] Pursuant to VIDÉOTRON LTÉE et al. and NESTAR COMMUNICATIONS INC. et al., 2003 FCA 56;

“[8] I now turn to the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in Fawkes et al. v. Swayzie (1899), Vol. XXXI O.R. 256, where the provision at issue, section 57 of the County Courts Act, R.S.O. c. 55, provided that an appeal had to be commenced within one month from the judgment or order complained of. The Divisional Court concluded that where a decision or order was not pronounced or delivered in public, it could not be held to have been made until such time as the parties were notified of it. At pages 259, 260 and 261, Armour C.J. stated:

... The theory of judicial procedure is that the cogent and binding effect of the order begins immediately from the time when the order is pronounced by the lips of the Judge, and if that could be done physically which legally is supposed to be done, and which one would desire to be done if it were possible, every order would be completed on the spot, written out by the judicial officer and in curid before the Court rises, and delivered to the parties. That is the unquestionable theory of judicial procedure, and in conformity with that theory the time when the order is "made," for the two words must be considered as equivalent and capable of being substituted the one for the other. The mere defining of the words of the Court by writing and reducing them into a form in which they can be evidence in a ministerial operation which, according to the true theory, succeeds the delivery of the order by the Judge, and must be in point of fact nothing in the world more than the physical embodiment on the spot by the Court of the words which the Judge has used."

[...]

I am of opinion that the principle of these decisions is entirely applicable to the case in judgment, and that the month mentioned in sec. 57 of the County Courts Act commences to run from the date of the judicial opinion or decision, oral or written, pronounced or delivered, and that the judgment or order founded upon it must be referred to that date.

If the judicial opinion or decision, oral or written, is not pronounced or delivered in open Court, then it cannot be said to be pronounced or delivered until the parties are notified of it.

[9] In Re Hache and Minister of Municipal Affairs (1969), 2 D.L.R. (3d) 186, the Appeal Division of the New Brunswick Supreme Court had to decide whether an appeal had been commenced within thirty days after the making of an Order by the Appeals Tribunal under the New Brunswick Assessment Act, s. 36 of which provided as follows:

Notwithstanding anything in any public or private Act, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from any order, decision or award of the Tribunal provided notice of such appeal is given to the other parties within thirty days after the making of the order or decision sought to be appealed from. [emphasis added]

At pages 193 and 194, after review of the relevant authorities, Hughes J.A. for the majority, made the following remarks:

The foregoing authorities satisfy me that the "making of the ... decision" referred to in s. 36 of the Assessment Act takes place when the decision is pronounced or delivered by the Appeals Tribunal at a hearing which by s. 30(11) is to be held in public or, if not so pronounced, when the parties have been notified of the decision.”

(VIDÉOTRON LTÉE et al. and NESTAR COMMUNICATIONS INC. et al., 2003 FCA 56 )

[114] John Gescher (john.gescher@peelregion.ca), the original lawyer for the REGION MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, failed to respond or reply to the Applicant 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.

[115] 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 was filed with the HRTO-EGISTRAR in September 2012.

[116] 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, without reasonable notice, and for the unlawful justification of no ONTARIO WORKS FINANCIAL SUPPORT, which blatantly contradicts, and unlawfully disobeys the SOCIAL TRIBUNAL INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER (FILE.: 1106-04904) , that was in full force at the time in question, in contravention of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA.

1.) Patric O’Connor/Gurjit Brar(LSUD 42197E) (gurjit.brar@peelregion.ca), lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY, in falsely accused the Applicant (Wayne Ferron) of “MISREPRESENTION to the TRIBUNAL” without the disclosure of FINAL ORDER CV 12-71600, even after being formally requested to do so by the Applicant.

PLEASE SEE June 15, 2015 INTERIM DECISION 2012-12585-I, concerning obtaining a copy of the same order which the ESPONDENTS has failed to disclose, but misleading use as a weapon to steel my HUMAN RIGHTS.

JOHN GESCHER(BLOCKING LAWFUL SERVICE)

[114] 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

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

[116] 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

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*”

[117] 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

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

“

[118] 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

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

“

[119] 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

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

DISCLOSURE

[120] On March 9, 2015, the Applicant file his FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST(2014-19377-i)... with the HRTO- REGISTRAR;

“

RE: IPC REQUEST-HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I

Inbox

Wayne Ferron

Mar 9

REQUISITION FOR INFORMATION DISCLOSURE FOR THE FOLLOWING; HRTO FILE: 2012-125...

HRTO-Registrar (MAG) <hrto.registrar@ontario.ca>

Mar 13

to me

Dear applicant,

To make a request for information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, you must complete the attached form and follow the directions as outlined in the form.

Pursuant to Rule 1.12 of the HRTO's Rules of Procedure, all correspondence must be directed to the Registrar at hrto.registrar@ontario.ca, and copied to the other parties. Thank-you, Lina Prochilo
Case Processing Officer Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Tel: 416-326-1312 \| hrto.registrar@ontario.ca
Social Justice Tribunals Ontario		Tribunaux de justice sociale Ontario
Providing fair and accessible dispute resolution		Pour une justice accessible et équitable
http ://www .sjto .gov .on .ca
NOTICE: Confidential message which may be privileged. If received in error, please delete the message and advise me by return email. Thank you. AVIS: Message confidentiel dont le contenu peut être privilégié. Si reçu par erreur, veuillez supprimer ce message et aviser l'expéditeur par retour de courriel. Merci.

From: Wayne Ferron [mailto:leegalpoet@gmail.com]

Sent: March-09-15 3:27 PM

To: HRTO-Registrar (MAG)

Subject: RE: IPC REQUEST-HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I

REQUISITION FOR INFORMATION DISCLOSURE

FOR THE FOLLOWING;

HRTO FILE: 2012-1258-I, 2015-19792-I, 2014-19681-I, 2014-19680-I, 2014-19377-I

WITH RESPECT TO INVESTIGATIONS AND FINDING OF FACTS

FOR THE ABOVE MATTERS

(“ any information obtained by the Commission in the course of an investigation”)

Attachments area

Preview attachment 0 Notice - Fees for Processing FOI Requests General updated contact .pdf

“

PLEASE SEE June 15, 2015 INTERIM DECISION 2012-12585-I, concerning DISCLOSURE, ACCESS TO HRTO 2012-12585-I.

[121] On March 13, 2015, the HRTO- REGISTRAR sent the following response to the Applicant’s email after filing of FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST (HRTO 2014-19377-I ET AL);

“

HRTO-Registrar (MAG) <hrto.registrar@ontario.ca>

Mar 13

Dear applicant,

To make a request for information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, you must complete the attached form and follow the directions as outlined in the form.

Pursuant to Rule 1.12 of the HRTO's Rules of Procedure, all correspondence must be directed to the Registrar at hrto.registrar@ontario.ca, and copied to the other parties.

Thank-you,

Lina Prochilo

Case Processing Officer

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Tel: 416-326-1312 | hrto.registrar@ontario.ca

Social Justice Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux de justice sociale Ontario

Providing fair and accessible dispute resolution

Pour une justice accessible et équitable

http ://www .sjto .gov .on .ca

NOTICE: Confidential message which may be privileged. If received in error, please delete the message and advise me by return email. Thank you.

AVIS: Message confidentiel dont le contenu peut être privilégié. Si reçu par erreur, veuillez supprimer ce message et aviser l'expéditeur par retour de courriel. Merci.

“

[122] On March 20, 2015, the Applicant sent to the HRTO- REGISTRAR, the following for HRTO 2014-19377-I;

“attend. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COORDINATOR

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

Mar 20

to HRTO-Registrar

I AM IMPECUNIOUS AND INSOLVENT

SO WHERE AM i GOING TO GET THE MONEY TO GIVE TO YOU?

Attachments area

Preview attachment HRTO -FREEDOMOFINFORMATIONREQUEST .pdf

“

HRTO ASSERTS DENIAL OF EVIDENCE

[123] On March 21, 2015, the Applicant sent to the HRTO- REGISTRAR, the following HRTO 2014-19377-I;

“CANNOT READ YOUR ATTACHMENT-Re: HRTO FILE: 2014-19377-I Wayne Ferron v. Toronto Metropolitan Police Services Division and Officer Green

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

Mar 21

to HRTO-Registrar

YOU REQUESTED THAT i FILE MY DOCUMENT THIS WAY.

YOU ARE FULLY AWARE THAT i HAVE NO MONEY AND AM LIVING ON THE STREETS.

you HAVE PURPOSELY PLACED A BARRIER TO ENTRY, BECAUSE i PROVIDED YOU WITH PROOF OF THE DATES WHICH YOU DISPUTED.

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:37 PM, HRTO-Registrar (MAG) <hrto.registrar@ontario.ca> wrote:

Dear Mr. Ferron,

The HRTO is in receipt of your numerous e-mails with attachments dated February 17, February 18, March 6, March 7 and March 9, 2015. The e-mails contain hundreds of pages of attachments. Many of the e-mails are repetitive and contain duplicate attachments. It’s also unclear how many of the attachments relate to the above-noted matter.

Due to the large number of e-mails and pages of documents, these documents are not being placed on file.If you wish to file these documents with the HRTO, then you must provide hard copies. However, you are also reminded that you are not required to file all your documents/evidence at this stage of the proceeding, and you should only be providing information relevant to the issues outlined in the HRTO’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss dated February 5, 2015. Please keep this in mind when sending documents to the HRTO.

Attached to this e-mail is one of your e-mails which appears to contain your written submissions in response to the HRTO’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss. By return e-mail, please confirm that these are the submissions you intend to file in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss. Send only one e-mail, simply confirming whether these are your final set of submissions. Once confirmation is received, the HRTO will print only the attached documents and place them on file.

Once again, you are reminded that the HRTO allows communication by e-mail which can be an efficient and effective method. However, e-mail can create challenges. Because it is easy to attach documents to an e-mail, parties sometimes attach unnecessary and large documents. As already indicated, please only attach documents to your e-mails which are relevant to any request you may be making or responding to. Restrict your e-mails to the HRTO as outlined above.

The HRTO strives to provide expeditious and accessible processes to help the parties resolve their dispute and that respect and reinforce the principles established in the Human Rights Code. Communications that are unduly lengthy, repetitive or disrespectful of any other participant or the Tribunal may be rejected. Persistent failure to comply with the HRTO’s rules for e-mail communications may result in an order or direction prohibiting the person from using that method of communication.

Please review the Practice Direction on Communicating with the HRTO which can be found at the following link:http ://hrto .ca /hrto /?q =en /node /105.

Pursuant to Rule 1.12 of the HRTO's Rules of Procedure, all correspondence must be directed to the Registrar at hrto.registrar@ontario.ca, and copied to the other parties. Thank-you, Lina Prochilo
Case Processing Officer Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Tel: 416-326-1312 \| hrto.registrar@ontario.ca
Social Justice Tribunals Ontario		Tribunaux de justice sociale Ontario
Providing fair and accessible dispute resolution		Pour une justice accessible et équitable
http ://www .sjto .gov .on .ca
NOTICE: Confidential message which may be privileged. If received in error, please delete the message and advise me by return email. Thank you. AVIS: Message confidentiel dont le contenu peut être privilégié. Si reçu par erreur, veuillez supprimer ce message et aviser l'expéditeur par retour de courriel. Merci.

“

LEGAL ARGUMENTS:

“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.”

(Applicant originally requested a hearing for January 2014)

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.

RULE 7

APPLICATION WITH REQUEST TO DEFER CONSIDERATION

7.1. An Applicant may file an Application under Rule 6.1 and, at the same time, ask the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application in accordance with Rule 14 if there are other legal proceedings dealing with the subject matter of the Application.

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.

7.3. Where an Application is filed with a request for a deferral, the Applicant must include the following additional information with the Form 1:

a)identifying information about the other legal proceeding dealing with

the subject matter of the Application; and

b) a copy of the document that commenced the other legal

proceeding.

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.

7.5. Where an Applicant wants the Tribunal to proceed with an Application that was deferred pending completion of another legal proceeding, the Applicant must make a request, in accordance with Rules 14.3 and 14.4, no later than 60 days after completion of the other proceeding.

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.

14.3 Where a party wishes the Tribunal to proceed with an Application which has been deferred the request must be made in accordance with Rule 19.

***14.4 Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other

legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.

14.5 The Tribunal may, on its own motion, require a deferred Application to proceed in appropriate circumstances.

Human Rights Code

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19

Disclosure of information to Commission

38. Despite anything in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 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

Disposition of applications

Interpretation of Part and rules

41. This Part and the Tribunal rules shall be liberally construed to permit the Tribunal to adopt practices and procedures, including alternatives to traditional adjudicative or adversarial procedures that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, will facilitate fair, just and expeditious resolutions of the merits of the matters before it. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Statutory Powers Procedure Act

42. (1) The provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act apply to a proceeding before the Tribunal unless they conflict with a provision of this Act, the regulations or the Tribunal rules. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Conflict

(2) Despite section 32 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, this Act, the regulations and the Tribunal rules prevail over the provisions of that Act with which they conflict. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Tribunal rules

43. (1) The Tribunal may make rules governing the practice and procedure before it. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Required practices and procedures

(2) The rules shall ensure that the following requirements are met with respect to any proceeding before the Tribunal:

1. An application that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall not be finally disposed of without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions in accordance with the rules.

2. An application may not be finally disposed of without written reasons. 2006, c. 30, s.

Application by person

34. (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Transfer of inquiry to Commission

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.

Orders of Tribunal: applications under s. 34

45.2 (1) On an application under section 34, the Tribunal may make one or more of the following orders if the Tribunal determines that a party to the application has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the application:

1. An order directing the party who infringed the right to pay monetary compensation to the party whose right was infringed for loss arising out of the infringement, including compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

2. An order directing the party who infringed the right to make restitution to the party whose right was infringed, other than through monetary compensation, for loss arising out of the infringement, including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

3. An order directing any party to the application to do anything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the party ought to do to promote compliance with this Act. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

Orders under par. 3 of subs. (1)

(2) For greater certainty, an order under paragraph 3 of subsection (1),

(a) may direct a person to do anything with respect to future practices; and

(b) may be made even if no order under that paragraph was requested. 2006, c. 30, s. 5.

PREMISE:

2.) Was the year of the incident with Mr. Harry Boom year 2011?

3.) Was the year of the incident with Mr. Blessing Anyananwu, Year 2012?

4.) Was the Year of the HUMAN RIGHTS INCIDENT (2012-12585-I) YEAR 2012;

5.) Are the two independent incidence concerning Mr. Harry Boom and Mr. Blessing Anyanwu the same or overlapping incidence?

6.) Did the RESPONDENTS mislead the HRTO tribunal?

8.) Is there a CONTRAVENTION NATURAL JUSTICE?

9.) Is there CONTRAVENTION PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS?

10.) IS HRTO 2012-12585-I VOIDABLE?

11.) Did Agents THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, a RESPONDENT, contravene Section 127(1) of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA?

12.) Did JOHN H. GESCHER or ANN C. DINNERT or TANYA GALLOWAY, lawyers for the THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL , contravene Article 4.01 of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT?

13.) Did JOHN H. GESCHER or ANN C. DINNERT or TANYA GALLOWAY, lawyers THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, contravention of Rule A 7.1 of the HRTO RULES?

14.) Did JOHN H. GESCHER or ANN C. DINNERT or TANYA GALLOWAY or THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, contravene Section 8. of theHUMAN RIGHTS CODE?

16.) Did Blair McCreadie, a lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY and a RESPONDENT, contravene Article 4.01 of the PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT?

17.) Did Blair McCreadie, a lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY and a RESPONDENT, contravene of Rule A 7.1 of the HRTO RULES?

18.) Did Blair McCreadie, a lawyer for the GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION ARMY and a RESPONDENT, contravene Section 8. of theHUMAN RIGHTS CODE?

19.) Did the RESPONDENTS, act in “GOOD FATE!”

20.) Has the process for HRTO 2012-12585-I been fair?

21.) Did the RESPONDENTS violate legislation?

22.) “[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?

[124] PREMISE (1)

Did the REGION OF PEEL disobey or contravene the SOCIAL TRIBUNAL Interim Assistance Order.: 1106-04904 for THE SOCIAL TRIBUNAL FILE.: 1106-04904 in the time interval [01 June 2011 to 30 November 2011]?

“EXHIBIT HOME_A-1st DAVID MILLER(OW SUPERVISOR)

I was released from the Hospital and I went directly to REGIONAL PEEL

HOMELESS SHELTER. I made no stop overs or detours; I was only given 1

ticket by the hospital despite the fact that Officer Pekeski(2261) stole my

personal belongings, which included my wallet, bus tickets and tokens,

necessary medication to prevent serious harm or death to my person, etc...

I gave my hospital release papers upon request to the intake clerk at the

REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTURE. The shelter will not admit you

without the aforesaid being done, it is enforced policy.

I spoke to ONTARIO WORKS_workers on more than one occasions. No one is

allowed to stay at the REGION OF PEEL SHELTER without speaking to

ONTARIO WORKS CASE WORKERS and disclosing hospital release papers to

staff. This is the said Homeless Shelter's enforced policy

Then I was evicted from the REGION OF PEEL HOMELESS SHELTER after

two weeks without reasonable cause(no eviction notice) or prior warning

during a schedule meeting to assess or establish my daughter's and my

financial needs to obtain a reasonable size and type of apartment.

The meeting was schedule for 1:00 pm with an ONTARIO WORKS CASE WORKER and Mr.

Harry Boom; I had to wait all day for the required meeting for financial

assessment only to be evicted without reasonable notice or reasonable cause in

violation of the SHELTER AGREEMENT and my HUMAN RIGHTS. In addition

to no financial/shelter needs assessment for my beloved daughter and I being

affected”

PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING EXHIBITS IN FILED DOCUMENT EXHIBIT HOME_A;

EXHIBIT HOME_A-2nd DAVID MILLER(OW SUPERVISOR),

EXHIBIT HOME_A-2nd GAIL WILLIAMS(5-622B)

APPEAL SPECIALIST EXHIBIT HOME_A-EVICTION NOTICE,

REGION OF PEEL (NICOLE ARBOUR) AUGUST 15, 2011 EVICTION NOTICE AT HOMELESS SHELTER,

EXHIBIT HOME_A-1st DAVID MILLER(OW SUPERVISOR), and

EXHIBIT HOME_A-PEEL ACCESS TO HOUSING.

[125] 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.”

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;

“7. The Salvation Army served a Statement of Defence in response to the Action on November 14, 2012. The Salvation Army defended against the Applicant’s claim in the Action on the basis that the Amended Statement of Claim fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action and is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the Court’s process.

8. The Applicant was not asked to leave the Shelter on the basis of any prohibited ground under the Code; in fact, the Applicant was discharged from the Shelter after The Salvation Army was advised that it would not receive funding from Ontario in Peel for the Applicant’s continued stay. This funding was not available because the Applicant had refused to disclose the required financial information necessary for him to establish his eligibility for such funding.

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

[126] Since, the above EXHIBITS discloses a copy of the SOCIAL TRIBUNAL Interim Assistance Order.: 1106-04904, the enforced decisions of ONTARIO WORKS, and EMAIL correspondence with ONTARIO WORKS can be combined with Mr. Blair McCreadie assertions in his submissions along with the dates on the artifacts in the EXHIBITS, to show without any reasonable doubt that THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL did indeed contravene THE SOCIAL TRIBUNAL INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER.: 1106-04904.

[127] Therefore, the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, violated THE SOCIAL TRIBUNAL INTERIM ASSISTANCE ORDER.: 1106-04904.

[128] Pursuant to the Applicant’s STATEMENT OF CLAIM CV 12-71600;

“ORDERED TO VACATE PEEL REGIONAL SHELTER:

[446] The Plaintiff allege that, on Tuesday the 12th of September 2011, he waited all

morning and all afternoon for his 1:00 P.M. appointment with Ontario-Works and the

SALVATION ARMY jointed co-counselors. The Ontario-Works councilor's name, he still

does-not know, and the Salvation Armyʼs counselor was Mr. Harry Boom, whom made

a determination or ruling in violation of Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, in regards to equal services or uniformity in services among all Canadians.

[447] The Plaintiff allege that, even though he informed Mr. Harry Boom of the violation

of Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. Contrastly, no one informed the Applicant

about establishing housing, operation budget, if he had secured accommodation or had

the common decency to give him written notification and reasonable time to vacate the

shelter; the Plaintiff was simple thrown out or an oral demand was made for him to

vacate the shelter the next day in no uncertain terms, on more than one occasion

without reasonable notification to the Applicant/tenant.

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

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

“undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and with out delay a

policy of elimination racial discrimination in all its forms...”

The aforementioned is a promise by the signature states made to the international

community and its citizens to enforce and protect HUMAN RIGHS and human dignity.”

[129] Thus, the REGION OF PEEL disobey or contravene the SOCIAL TRIBUNAL Interim Assistance Order.: 1106-04904 for THE SOCIAL TRIBUNAL FILE.: 1106-04904 in the time interval [01 June 2011 to 30 November 2011].

[130] Hence, PREMISE (1) is proved.

[131] PREMISE (2)

Was the year of the incident with Mr. Harry Boom year 2011?

[132] Pursuant to the Applicant’s STATEMENT OF CLAIM CV 12-71600;