PEEL POLICE SERVICES HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19681-I

Obstructing justice: 139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding, (2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence…

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

______________________________________________

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against Ministry of the Attorney General (Court Service Division), John Gerretsen, Sandra Theroulde, Gail Hugh, Desiree Viceral

WITHHOLDING or

DENIAL of EQUAL “COURT SERVICES”

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

________________________________________

RECONSIDERATION

for honesty, honour, integrity, fairness, equity, and the application of DUE PROCESS OF LAW and the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW

______________________________________________________

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

Do I have any LEGAL or HUMAN rights in Ontario? 1

HRTO 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…”

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

______________________________________________

IN THE MATTER of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

-and-

IN THE MATTER of a COMPLAINT by Wayne Ferron against Ministry of the Attorney General (Court Service Division), John Gerretsen, Sandra Theroulde, Gail Hugh, Desiree Viceral

WITHHOLDING or

DENIAL of EQUAL “COURT SERVICES”

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

________________________________________

RECONSIDERATION

for honesty, honour, integrity, fairness, equity, and the application of DUE PROCESS OF LAW and the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW

______________________________________________________

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

INDEX

CRIMINAL CODE page 3 - 13

ASSUMPTIONS page 14

PREMISE page 15-16

OVERVIEW page 17 –46

DISCRIMINATION page 47 - 55

LINKAGE page 47 - 48

REPRISALS page 49 – 55

CASE LAW page 56 - 63

HAVING JURISDICTION page 56

REPRISALS page 57-58

POLICE SERVICES page 59

THEFT page 60

DISCLOSURE page 61

FAIRNESS page 62

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS page 63

HRTO RULE 26 page 64

SUMMARY OF FACTS page 65 -103

COURT SERVICE WORKERS page 91-103

LEGAL ARGUMENTS page 104–115

PREMISE page 116-128

REMEDY page 129-131

“Other Matters

[7] In his Application the applicant identified Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, court staff, as respondents. {…}

Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of July, 2012.

“Signed by”

__________________________________

David Muir

Vice-chair “

(Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462, File Number: 2011-08103-I , Adjudicator: David Muir )

CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA:

Misleading Justice

Marginal note:Perjury

131. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.

Marginal note:Video links, etc.

Subject to subsection (3), every person who gives evidence under subsection 46(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, or gives evidence or a statement pursuant to an order made under section 22.2 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes a false statement knowing that it is false, whether or not the false statement was made under oath or solemn affirmation in accordance with subsection (1), so long as the false statement was made in accordance with any formalities required by the law of the place outside Canada in which the person is virtually present or heard.

{...}

Punishment

132. Every one who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 132;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17;

1998, c. 35, s. 119.

Marginal note:Corroboration

133. No person shall be convicted of an offence under section 132 on the evidence of only one witness unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 133;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17.

Marginal note:Idem

134. (1) Subject to subsection (2), every one who, not being specially permitted, authorized or required by law to make a statement under oath or solemn affirmation, makes such a statement, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him, knowing that the statement is false, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Application

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a statement referred to in that subsection that is made in the course of a criminal investigation.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 134;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17.

135. [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17]

Marginal note:Witness giving contradictory evidence

136. (1) Every one who, being a witness in a judicial proceeding, gives evidence with respect to any matter of fact or knowledge and who subsequently, in a judicial proceeding, gives evidence that is contrary to his previous evidence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, whether or not the prior or later evidence or either is true, but no person shall be convicted under this section unless the court, judge or provincial court judge, as the case may be, is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, in giving evidence in either of the judicial proceedings, intended to mislead.

Marginal note:Evidence in specific cases

Fabricating evidence

137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.

Marginal note:Offences relating to affidavits

138. Every one who

(a) signs a writing that purports to be an affidavit or statutory declaration and to have been sworn or declared before him when the writing was not so sworn or declared or when he knows that he has no authority to administer the oath or declaration,

(b) uses or offers for use any writing purporting to be an affidavit or statutory declaration that he knows was not sworn or declared, as the case may be, by the affiant or declarant or before a person authorized in that behalf, or

(c) signs as affiant or declarant a writing that purports to be an affidavit or statutory declaration and to have been sworn or declared by him, as the case may be, when the writing was not so sworn or declared,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 126.

Marginal note:Obstructing justice

139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

is guilty of

(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note:Idem

(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Marginal note:Idem

(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,

(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;

(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or

(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 127;

R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 3;

1972, c. 13, s. 8.

{...}

Public mischief

140. (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by

(a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;

(b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;

(d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.

Marginal note:Punishment

(2) Every one who commits public mischief

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 140;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 19.

Marginal note:Compounding indictable offence

141. (1) Every one who asks for or obtains or agrees to receive or obtain any valuable consideration for himself or any other person by agreeing to compound or conceal an indictable offence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Marginal note:Exception for diversion agreements

(2) No offence is committed under subsection (1) where valuable consideration is received or obtained or is to be received or obtained under an agreement for compensation or restitution or personal services that is

(a) entered into with the consent of the Attorney General; or

(b) made as part of a program, approved by the Attorney General, to divert persons charged with indictable offences from criminal proceedings.

Theft

322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;

(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;

(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or

(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.

Punishment for theft

334. Except where otherwise provided by law, every one who commits theft

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, where the property stolen is a testamentary instrument or the value of what is stolen exceeds five thousand dollars; or

(b) is guilty

(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,

where the value of what is stolen does not exceed five thousand dollars.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 334;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 43;

1994, c. 44, s. 20

Fraud

380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or

(b) is guilty

(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,

where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.

22. (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offense and that other person is afterwards a party to that offense, the person who counseled is a party to that offense, notwithstanding that the offense was committed in a way different from that which was counseled.

Idem

(2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offense is a party to every offense that the other commits in consequence of the counseling that the person who counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling.

Definition of “counsel”

(3) For the purposes of this Act, “counsel” includes procure, solicit or incite.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 22;

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 7.

ffences of negligence — organizations

22.1 In respect of an offence that requires the prosecution to prove negligence, an organization is a party to the offence if

(a) acting within the scope of their authority

(i) one of its representatives is a party to the offence, or

(ii) two or more of its representatives engage in conduct, whether by act or omission, such that, if it had been the conduct of only one representative, that representative would have been a party to the offence; and

(b) the senior officer who is responsible for the aspect of the organization’s activities that is relevant to the offence departs — or the senior officers, collectively, depart — markedly from the standard of care that, in the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to prevent a representative of the organization from being a party to the offence.

2003, c. 21, s. 2.

Marginal note:Other offences — organizations

22.2 In respect of an offence that requires the prosecution to prove fault — other than negligence — an organization is a party to the offence if, with the intent at least in part to benefit the organization, one of its senior officers

(a) acting within the scope of their authority, is a party to the offence;

(b) having the mental state required to be a party to the offence and acting within the scope of their authority, directs the work of other representatives of the organization so that they do the act or make the omission specified in the offence; or

(c) knowing that a representative of the organization is or is about to be a party to the offence, does not take all reasonable measures to stop them from being a party to the offence.

2003, c. 21, s. 2.

Marginal note:Accessory after the fact

23. (1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing that a person has been a party to the offence, receives, comforts or assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.

(2) [Repealed, 2000, c. 12, s. 92]

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 23;

2000, c. 12, s. 92.

Marginal note:Where one party cannot be convicted

23.1 For greater certainty, sections 21 to 23 apply in respect of an accused notwithstanding the fact that the person whom the accused aids or abets, counsels or procures or receives, comforts or assists cannot be convicted of the offence.

R.S., 1985, c. 24 (2nd Supp.), s. 45.

Marginal note:Attempts

24. (1) Every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out the intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence.

Marginal note:Question of law

(2) The question whether an act or omission by a person who has an intent to commit an offence is or is not mere preparation to commit the offence, and too remote to constitute an attempt to commit the offence, is a question of law.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 24.

“THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE OF THEFT

[13] The offence of theft is defined in section 322(1) of the Criminal Code. For the purposes of this trial, section 322(1)(a) is the applicable section. It states as follows:

(1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it…

{…}

[14] As can be seen from the manner in which the offence of theft is defined in section 322(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, this offence requires proof that the accused person took or converted something with the intent of depriving its owner of his or her interest in it or of the thing itself. The Crown must prove that this was done fraudulently. Though the Crown does not have to prove that any secrecy or concealment occurred (see section 322(3) of the Criminal Code), the Crown must prove that the accused intended to take the thing and to deprive its owner of it (see R. v LaFrance, 1973 CanLII 35 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201, R. v. Skalbania, 1997 CanLII 337 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 995 and R. v. Dorosh (2003), 2003 SKCA 134 (CanLII), 183 C.C.C. (3d) 224 (Sask. C.A.)).

[15] In R. v. Squires, [2005] N.J. No. 117, I had the opportunity to consider how the mens rea element of the offence of theft should be defined. At paragraph 43, I set out my conclusions as follows:

Though defining the mens rea element for the offence of theft is not without some difficulty (see Winifred Holland, The Law of Theft and Related Offences (Carswell, 1988), at pages 145-199), it can be confidently stated that the offence of theft as defined by section 322(1)(a) of the Code, requires proof of an intent by the accused to deprive the owner of his or her property or their interest in it (see R. v. J.P.D. (1996), 141 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304 (P.C.) and R. v. Dorosh (2003), 2003 SKCA 134 (CanLII), 183 C.C.C. (3d) 224 (Sask. C.A.). Without proof of this intent, the offence of theft cannot be established pursuant to this section of the Code… “

(R. v. Hampton, 2008 CanLII 28403 (NL PC))

“[66] Their aim was to reclaim the offence of theft from the legal wilderness to which the English judges had protectively steered it. The Commissioners predicted, hopefully:

" … the definition properly expounded and qualified will, we think, be found to embrace every act which in common language would be regarded as theft and it will avoid all the technicalities referred to as arising out of the common law rules, as well as out of the intricate and somewhat arbitrary legislation on the subject …"

[67] The prototype offence of theft and the ways it could be committed became part of the "Criminal Code of the Dominion of Canada" which came into force on July 1, 1893. The simple components of the crime were to be 1) a fraudulent taking or 2) a fraudulent converting, and 3) intent to deprive. It first appeared as s. 305. Other species of theft, all tied to the same definition base, were set forth and included theft by agents, by attorneys, by trustees, and theft of proceeds under direction, etc. To give further force to fraudulent conversion as a distinct mode of theft, and to remove innocent origin as a defence, s. 305(3) provided;

"It is immaterial whether the thing converted was taken for the purpose of conversion, or whether it was at the time of the conversion, in the lawful possession of the person converting."

These provisions can be found in today's Criminal Code,, as sections 322(1) and 322(4). That these may be crimes of mere opportunity as opposed to crimes that are planned and deliberately carried out is beyond doubt. This, however, is a sentencing mitigant.

[68] Although I do not think that, under the authorities, there was a fraudulent taking in this case, there was nevertheless, a fraudulent conversion which is admitted. As a mode of theft, fraudulent conversion does not depend on whether the owner's loss of possession was innocent. This is clear from two Canadian appellate cases, R. v. Brochu (1950) 10 C.R. 183 (C.A.) and R. v. Johnson [1978] 6 W.W.R. 97 (C.A.).

R. v. Brochu

[69] Brochu had cashed a $1,500.00 cheque at his bank but the teller he was dealing with gave him $1,000.00 too much. Brochu clearly knew of the overpayment although, equally, he did not induce it. He was charged and convicted of theft. He appealed, relying on the English authorities which would have discharged him because his first possession of the funds was under mere mistake. The Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed his conviction for theft. Marchand, J. distinguished the English cases which held that a merely mistaken parting of the owner's goods foreclosed theft. In holding that the Criminal Code definition of theft went "far beyond the discussions of the common law", Marchand, J. wrote:

"… I see in them that anyone who has received, through the unilateral error of an owner, a thing to which he has no right, and decides to convert it to his own use, to keep it, when the mistake that has given it to him is pointed out to him, creates for himself a fraudulent title, takes fraudulently and without colour of right, with intent to deprive the owner, with full animus furandi, and makes himself guilty of this thing."

(191)

St. Jacques, J. agreed,

"From the time that he discovered that error Brochu had the obligation of returning to the bank that to which he had no right. In retaining it he appropriated fraudulently and unlawfully money which was not his own property””

(R. v. Milne, 1990 ABCA 323 (CanLII),)

(194)

ASSUMPTIONS:

1. All parties respect and submit to, PARLIMENTARY LEGISLATION, CRIMINAL CODE, HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, HOMOUR, HONESTY, AND INTEGRITY.

2. ALL PARTIES ARE ACTING IN GOOD FAIT

3. APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE

4. PROCEDURE IS FAIR AND EQUAL

5. NATURAL JUSTICE was not violated

6. EQUAL ACCESS TO EVIDENCE and JUSTICE

PREMISE:

1.) Did COURT SERVICE WORKERS reproduce public evidence in accordance with the rules the court?

2.) Are REQUISITION to the REGITRAR or RECORDS still pending?

3.) Are REQUISITION TO THE deputy clerk STILL PENDING;

4.) Did COURT SERVICE WORKERS provide equal service to the Applicant in accordance with COURT rules and laws?

5.) Did COURT SERVICE WORKERS deny the Applicant a fair hearing by suppressing evidence?

6.) Did COURT SERVICE WORKERS provide equal service to the Applicant in accordance with the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE?

7.) Is there a CONTRAVENTION NATURAL JUSTICE?

8.) Is there CONTRAVENTION PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS?

9.) Is there a contradiction of CASE LAW?

10.) Is there a contradiction of of the HRTO RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, and does the matte conform to some of the conditions in Section 26.5 of the Human Rights act for RECONSIDERATION?

OVERVIEW:

[1] The following was in the NOTICE of MOTION TO TRANSFER MATTER TO COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION (2014-19681-I), but the same document contents was not referred to or mentioned in the reasons for judgement. Disclosed to the RESPONDENTS and HRTO-REGISTRAR in the same filed RESPONSE TO DISMISSAL DOCUMENT;

”TAKE NOTICE: that a Motion will be made before a single JuSTICE or the TRIBUNAL to transfer the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction and to request that the response to the NOTICE OF DISMISSAL(2014-19681-I) be an oral submission with the calling of witnesses to assist the court, for HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19681-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.

{…}

Statutory Powers Procedure Act

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER S.22

Disposition without hearing

4.1If the parties consent, a proceeding may be disposed of by a decision of the tribunal given without a hearing, unless another Act or a regulation that applies to the proceeding provides otherwise. 1997, c. 23, s. 13 (2).

Dismissal of proceeding without hearing

4.6(1)Subject to subsections (5) and (6), a tribunal may dismiss a proceeding without a hearing if,

(a) the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith;

(b) the proceeding relates to matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal; or

Notice

(2)Before dismissing a proceeding under this section, a tribunal shall give notice of its intention to dismiss the proceeding to,

(a) all parties to the proceeding if the proceeding is being dismissed for reasons referred to in clause (1) (b); or

(b) the party who commences the proceeding if the proceeding is being dismissed for any other reason.

Same

(3)The notice of intention to dismiss a proceeding shall set out the reasons for the dismissal and inform the parties of their right to make written submissions to the tribunal with respect to the dismissal within the time specified in the notice.

Right to make submissions

(4)A party who receives a notice under subsection (2) may make written submissions to the tribunal with respect to the dismissal within the time specified in the notice.

Dismissal

(5)A tribunal shall not dismiss a proceeding under this section until it has given notice under subsection (2) and considered any submissions made under subsection (4).

Rules

(6)A tribunal shall not dismiss a proceeding under this section unless it has made rules under section 25.1 respecting the early dismissal of proceedings and those rules shall include,

(a) any of the grounds referred to in subsection (1) upon which a proceeding may be dismissed;

(b) the right of the parties who are entitled to receive notice under subsection (2) to make submissions with respect to the dismissal; and

Continuance of provisions in other statutes

(7)Despite section 32, nothing in this section shall prevent a tribunal from dismissing a proceeding on grounds other than those referred to in subsection (1) or without complying with subsections (2) to (6) if the tribunal dismisses the proceeding in accordance with the provisions of an Act that are in force on the day this section comes into force. 1999, c. 12, Sched. B, s. 16 (3).

Right to representation

10. A party to a proceeding may be represented by a representative. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 134 (3).

Examination of witnesses

10.1A party to a proceeding may, at an oral or electronic hearing,

(a) call and examine witnesses and present evidence and submissions; and

(b) conduct cross-examinations of witnesses at the hearing reasonably required for a full and fair disclosure of all matters relevant to the issues in the proceeding. 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (20).

Rights of witnesses to representation

11. (1) A witness at an oral or electronic hearing is entitled to be advised by a representative as to his or her rights, but such representative may take no other part in the hearing without leave of the tribunal. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 134 (4).

Idem

(2) Where an oral hearing is closed to the public, the witness’s representative is not entitled to be present except when that witness is giving evidence. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, s. 11 (2); 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (22); 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 134 (5).

Summonses

12. (1) A tribunal may require any person, including a party, by summons,

(a) to give evidence on oath or affirmation at an oral or electronic hearing; and

(b) to produce in evidence at an oral or electronic hearing documents and things specified by the tribunal,

relevant to the subject-matter of the proceeding and admissible at a hearing. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, s. 12 (1); 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (23).

Form and service of summons

(2) A summons issued under subsection (1) shall be in the prescribed form (in English or French) and,

(a) where the tribunal consists of one person, shall be signed by him or her;

(b) where the tribunal consists of more than one person, shall be signed by the chair of the tribunal or in such other manner as documents on behalf of the tribunal may be signed under the statute constituting the tribunal. 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (24).

Pursuant to Richard Hennessy ;

“Re: Wayne Ferron v. Ministry of the Attorney General (Court Services Division) John Gerretsen, Sandra Theroulde, Gail Hugh, Desiree Viceral

Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of an Application, HRTO file number 2014-19681-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 April 30, 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. See for example Miller v. Prudential Lifestyles Real Estate, 2009 HRTO 1241 (CanLII); Mafinezam v. University of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1495 (CanLII); and Garrie v. Janus Joan Inc., 2012 HRTO 1955..

Is “good faith” a question of fact or law to be determined by a judicial officer in a court of competent jurisdiction, or is the REGISTRAR determining a question of law?

Is the HRTO-REGISTRAR a court of competent jurisdiction for a question of law?

Please see the following below, a denial of service with reprisal does not seem to need discrimination to be heard or rule on the matter before the court;

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”

The above statement by Richard Hennessy is false or misleading, for the simple reason that you have dared to change my original premise. This is the greatest sin in unbiasly evaluating someone's argument that one can commit. Because you are in essence stating your own premise, then judging it, then falsely assigning it to the applicant like it was his own. The above stated premise is yours not mine.

My PREMISE is the following:

My HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT(2014-19681-I) lays on the foundation of the Respondents having violated Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE by way of denial of COURT SERVICE and denial of equal COURT SERVICES, byway of denial of equal and fair REPRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE to perfect appeal(C56817, etc) and to complete REQUESITIONS(C56817 etc) or at least respond to REQUISITIONS in contravention of Section 1. of the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, contravention of the COURT Rules, and in violation of the POLICY OF THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT, to give equal services in COURT SERVICE for every and all parties involved in a judicial matter. EQUAL UNBIASED SERVICES IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE COURT SERVICE WORKERS!, For which I being a Canadian is entitled to, but the said service was unequal, inferior, and some of the requested REQUISITIONS ARE STILL PENDING(TRANSCRIPT C56817, etc), INFACT MOST! In addition, this is a violation of SECTION 15 of the CHARTER and the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT of CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS to which the ONTARIO GOVERNMENT has committed itself and has signed in the capacity of a STATE PARTY.

Human Rights Code

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

PART I

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

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.

Pursuant to Richard Hennessy ;

•you allege discrimination based on “reprisal or threat of reprisal” but have failed to explain how the respondent s’ behaviour was related to any of the following: claiming or enforcing a right under the Code; instituting or participating in proceedings under the Code; or, refusing to infringe the right of another person under the Code [s. 8]. See for example Mirea v. Canadian National Exhibition, 2009 HRTO 32 (CanLII); Chan v. Tai Pan Vacations, 2009 HRTO 273 (CanLII).

The REPRISAL reprisal is the LEGALLY BULLYING for my beliefs in a fair and equal enforcement of the CRIMINAL CODE and for my PRIVATE PROSECUTION against those who believe themselves to be above the law.

Human Rights Code

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

PART I

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION

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.

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).

Pursuant to Richard Hennessy ;

• the/a respondent is an arbitrator, adjudicator or judge. The HRTO has stated that it has no jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals based on the execution of adjudicative duties or decision-making because of the doctrine of judicial or adjudicative immunity: see Cartier v. Nairn 2009 HRTO 2208 (CanLII); Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp. 2009 HRTO 2180 (CanLII); Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 (CanLII).

• a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondents.

Please describe the JUDICIAL DUTIES OR ADJUDICATIVE DUTIES COURT SERVICE WORKER Gail Hugh; she is a CLERK at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, and she describe her professional self as a clerk in her sworn affidavit(filed in the courts as evidence record), which is also filed in other courts. As a COURT SERVICE WORKER, she has no adjudicative immunity because she was not acting in the capacity of a JUDICIAL OFFICER nor was her function a JUDICIAL function within the context of my HUMAN RIGHTS complain 2014-19681-I.”

[2] The following was on the title page of the RESPONSE

TO RICHARD HENNESSY ADJUDICATION, without response from RESPONDENTS, NOTICE to dismiss matters with… (2014-19681-I), but the same document was not referred to or mentioned in the reasons for judgement. Disclosed to the RESPONDENTS and HRTO-REGISTRAR in the same filed RESPONSE TO DISMISSAL DOCUMENT in contravention of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS and NATURAL JUSTICE.

“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”

[3] The following was in the RESPONSE

TO RICHARD HENNESSY ADJUDICATION, without response from RESPONDENTS, NOTICE to dismiss matters with… (2014-19681-I), but the same document contents was not referred to or mentioned in the reasons for judgement. Disclosed to the RESPONDENTS and HRTO-REGISTRAR in the same filed RESPONSE TO DISMISSAL DOCUMENT;

“

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: 2012-1258-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 Ontario Human 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 in Laskowskav. 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)” (Par Sean 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)

Pursuant to Eugene Cerruti, Professor of Law at New york Law School;

“In the earliest stages of the common law trial system the accused was not permitted to present much in the way of an actual forensic defense to the charges. When the accused did finally gain permission to present such a defense he was not permitted to be represented by counsel, to call witnesses or even testify under oath in his own behalf. He was permitted only to appear personally at trial and to provide direct responses to the evidence offered against him. “In short, the defendant's position was one of standing alone without counsel, books, the means of procuring evidence or the right to offer evidence which he did possess.”8 The purpose of self- representation was to promote self-incrimination.9 Self- representation began, in other words, as the default position that resulted from the denial of any other right of fair trial or representation.”

(SELF-REPRESENTATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA: REMOVING A FALSE RIGHT OF SPECTACLE, UGENE CERRUTI)

{…}

[77] COMPLAINT HRTO FILE: 2014-19681-I

HRTO FILE: 2014-19681-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, production of evidence, order of court materials to perfect appeal, location of missing evidence. All of the aforesaid was requested in REQUISITION for C567168 etc. and to which there has been no response.) (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 Services Division) John Gerretsen, Sandra Theroulde, Gail Hugh, Desire Viceral

Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of an Application, HRTO file number 2014-19681-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 April 30, 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” “

[3] On March 12, 2015, the Applicant received from the HRTO- REGISTRAR the following message after filing of materials for his HRTO matters. The Applicant is financially destitute and living as a homeless vagabond, in addition to the HRTO directing the Applicant to filing and serving legal materials by email. In a summary dismissal, it is expected of the Applicant to present all evidence in accordance with the SUPREME COURT CASE LAW to show merits while all the Applicants allegation should be assumed to be true;

“

HRTO FILE: 2014-19377-I Wayne Ferron v. Toronto Metropolitan Police Services Division and Officer Green

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

Mar 12

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.”

[4] 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

“

[5] On March 13, 2015, the HRTO- REGISTRAR sent the following response to the Applicant’s email after filing of FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST (HRTO 2015-19792-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.

“

[6] On March 20, 2015, the Applicant sent to the HRTO- REGISTRAR, the following for HRTO 2015-19792-I et al.;

“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

“

[7] 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,

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.

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.

“

[8] The following was in the served and filed legal document TO RICHARD HENNESSY ADJUDICATION, without response from RESPONDENTS, NOTICE to dismiss matters with

…(2015-19792-I), but the same document was not referred to or mentioned in the reasons for judgement. Disclosed to the RESPONDENTS and HRTO-REGISTRAR in the same filed RESPONSE TO DISMISSAL DOCUMENT…;

“[72] COMPLAINT HRTO FILE: 2015-19792-I

Denial of PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES although on going became unbearable on Jan 5, 2015 because it involved my life. I was slowly being killed or murdered to pretech Officer Pekeski(2261), and Ms. Joanne Stuart etc who are above the law and not subject to the law.

[73] HRTO FILE: 2015-19792-I PLEASE STOP CHANGING MY PREMISE!

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

HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT ON DENIAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES (Officer Pekeski(2261) defiant action of keeping stolen property belonging to me and refusing to return them before the proper authorities, is the main contributor for my denial of goods and services) (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. Peel Regional Police Services and Officer Pekeski

Subject: Notice of Intent to Dismiss

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of an Application, HRTO file number 2015-19792-I, filed by Wayne Ferron on January 5, 2015.

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

• the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination described in your Application and you do not appear to have cited facts that constitute “good faith” within the meaning of the HRTO’s case law [s.34(1)]. See for example Thomas v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2009 HRTO 1582 (CanLII) and see for example Diler v. Cambridge Memorial Hospital, 2010 HRTO 1224 (CanLII) for a discussion of “good faith”.

[75] GOODFAIT, THE RESPONDENT IS STILL IN POSSESSIONS, STILL DIPRIVING ME OF MY POSSESSION, , RESPONSED AFORSAID ACTIONS ARE STILL DEPRIVINGING ME OF PUBLIC GOOD AND SERVICES, THE RESPONDEN IS A CRIMINAL WHO HAS VIOLATION AT LEAST ONE COURT SUMMONDS TO COME TO COURT GIVE EVIDENCE AND ASSISTE THE COURT: Was Officer Pekeski(2261) acting in “good faith” when he retained my ID, wallet, etc.. and still retains the stolen materials; in addition to denying me the use of the said stolen material to fully access PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES and MEDICAL SERVICES?

As long as Officer Peski(2261) refuse to return the stolen material and fail to return my belongings after I have exercised my authority over the same stolen materials by way of me exercising my colour of right; he his still committing a crime which is denying me my HUMAN RIGHTS or life, liberty, security, and pursuit of happiness.

[76] So do the just RIGHTEOUS thing and have Officer Pekeski(2261) return my belongs to ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS Toronto Office with the proper paper work for me to sign in receiving the same stolen material to end this evil saga which in taking my life.

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,”

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.)”

[9] 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.

[10] CASE LAWS, of HRTO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER COURT SERVICES:

1. Riad v. Ontario (Attorney General)- 2014 HRTO 48

2. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola 2011 SCC 52 File No.: 33648.

3. Riad v. Superior Court of Justice 2011 HRTO 1708

4. Riad v. Superior Court of Justice 2012 HRTO 1462

5. Tsemo v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 2012 HRTO 1476

[11] 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 )

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.

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{...}

[12] 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

[13] CASE LAW-THEFT

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

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)

[14] 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

[15] 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

[16] 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

[17] RULE 26.5-HRTO PROCEDURAL RULE:

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

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

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

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

d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

[18] 2015 - “Justice delayed is justice denied” Am I being denied Justice in the hopes that I will die from a heart attack, there by killing me or murdering me with in the context that “CIVIL DEATH” has already been inflected upon my person and children ?

[19] On Jan 22, 2015 the Applicant sent HRTO the following message;

“

MARKED FOR SILENT MURDER-HRTO FILE 2015-19792-I Wayne Ferron v. Peel Regional Police Services et al

Inbox

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

Jan 22

THIN SKULL RULE: Take your victim as they are

On January 21, 2015, the out of cold location that I was suppose to stay at was full and I did not have a spot reserved for my person; despite the fact that I came an hour early to obtain the line up ticket.

I had to leave after dinner and spending the night in the cold outside would have meant my untimely death. So I went to the Hospital to check on my health (My health is being held hostage).

The Doctor told me in no uncertain terms that I could have an heart attack any day because of my high blood press. He asserted many time on this point. I have disclosed my prescription . The fact that all my legal rights and human rights was talked away from me; I cannot access( blocked from using goods and services). This is why I am marked for death and why I am being murder.

Please provide the necessary interim court order for be to access goods and services and fill my very much need prescription. I want the same rights as any other Canadian and the right to live and not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments by being marked for silent murder by way of omission. I want to live!

___________________________

Wayne Ferron

22 January 2015

7 Attachments

Preview attachment 6-AMENDED-EI-EXHIBIT X -FEDERAL SOCIAL TRIBUNAL APPEAL-GENERAL.pdf

Preview attachment DOC.pdf

Preview attachment DOC000.pdf

Preview attachment DOC001.pdf

Preview attachment SHReport2007.pdf

Preview attachment HARM3715-11318-2-PB.pdf

Preview attachment SaferCrackSmokingFinal2014.pdf

“

[20] On Jan 16, 2015 the Applicant sent HRTO the following message;

“

SILENT MURDER-PRESCRIPTION-NEW COMPLAINT-URGENT EMERGENCY TO OBTAIN MEDICATION

Inbox

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

Jan 16

to supporter.ca, info, csi, peterprice, registrar, newswatch, Want, editor.indiati., tarun.grover, washingtonbure., Inyt, hollywoodbureau, isdr, america, ajam.community, gleanerna, feedback, editorial, Julie, cbcnewsottawa, freedom4canada., city, LawCommission, publicenquiries, mail

I AM STILL BEING MURDERED SLOWELY

I am being murdered slowly!

SOCIAL MURDER,

“CIVIL DEATH.”

I am still being murdered slowly,

But surly!

Though there is no bloody

dripping knife in my chest,

I am still being murdered?

Though there is no smoking gun,

I am still being murdered?

Though the allusive deadly poison is missing,

I am still being murdered?

The weapon of choice is

omission of sworn responsibility,

and denial of social services.

Weaponized policy

douth kill!

Yes,

My murders wields

goods,

services,

and public policies.

a very an effective weapon;

to slash,

to maim,

and kill.

It is all the same.

With a cold dark bloody hearts,

leaving a bloodless corps

for dead as dead can be.

You don’t need a bloody beating heart

upon a cold concrete floor

to commit murder.

A clean slice of the CIVIL NECK,

Will do the same.

Oh,

The shameful,

shame.

CIVIL DEATH.

SOCIAL MURDER,

Will make you more dead,

than any normal untimely death can be.

In this sense,

I am MURDERED!

I called EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE many times, to inquire if they need any more information, or need me to answer questions to which there answer response was in the negative. They had everything they needed to make a fair assessment. In addition EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE advised or directed me to get financial need from SOCIAL SERVICES until they are able to make a decision on my EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE claim.

Since I was starting to get headaches and I had run out of HIGH BLOOD MEDICINE for months, in addition to having no money in the bank; I had no choice but to go to Toronto EMERGENCY HOSPITAL and seek get a prescription and ask SOCIAL SERVICES to fund the medication.

I was surprised to find out that I did not qualify for a DRUG CARD, for lack of IDENTIFICATION which Officer Pekeski(2261) stole and refused to return after I exercise my colour of right on many occasions, within the context that EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE was directing me to SOCIAL SERVICES FOR FUNDING. I need to take care of my health before anything else, such as hosing, work, job, exercise; I have to keep my stress level very low or end up dead.

I again, called EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE many times, it is quite hard to get through to them. Nevertheless, I was directed to E. HOFFMAN(1-866-950-7227) as the contact person. I requested to be transferred to Mr. Hoffman because of the difficulty getting access to EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE agents, I was denied the the phone transfer.

I again, called Mr. Hoffman (EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-1-866-950-7227) many times to no avail. He has not answered his phone, there has been no emails from Mr. Hoffman as far as I know.

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) tin 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?

I have informed EMPLOYMENT on many occasions concerning my situation on the phone.

When I told about my need of medications and I might possible die without it, I was told;

”...you will die then.”

When I told EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE about my child need to paying and securing residence, the EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE agent told me that my daughter;

“...is an adult who will find or figure out a way!”

Does my beloved daughter have the right to study without unnecessary stress?

I have done all I could, I can’t do any more now. I don’t know if this problem will be solved before I am dead, have a stroke, or have major organ damage.

I would like to know what is being done help me to be marketable, find a job, and be a productive taxpaying member of society. And if it is the case that the answer is in the negative, then what is the purpose of it all?

Since,
I have no equal rights
to goods and services,
no HUMAN RIGHTS,
and no LEGAL RIGHTS.

Into the hands of

THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL,

and THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

DO I COMMIT MY LIFE!

I am the first,

who will be the next victim?

Is it you?

Since all my legal right/human rights was stolen in all of ONTARIO by BLG(Kathrine Kirkpatrick) via fraudulent means and based on a fallacy in her arguments(JUSTICE ANDRE'S ORDERS), to take all of my legal rights away in all of ONTARIO byway of PROVINCIAL legislation overcoming FEDERAL legislation 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 allege criminal offenses. In short the serves them, but they are not subject to it. Because of my just private prosecutions (Section 507.1 and 504), the following has happen to my person;

1. the CROWN being allowed to UNLAWFULLY remove PRIVATE PROSECUTION PUBLIC EVIDENCE (C 58716-INCRIMINATE THE CROWN) from the COA-RECORDS while affecting 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 (C 58716-INCRIMINATE THE CROWN) ;

3. impeded or restricted access to
private prosecution public evidence (C58716 etc.-INCRIMINATE THE CROWN);

4. harassment while filing required court documents for private prosecutions EVIDENCE (C58716 etc.-INCRIMINATE THE CROWN);

5. unlawful imprisonment while attempting to file private prosecution information EVIDENCE (c1912, C58716 etc-INCRIMINATE THE CROWN);

6. conviction without notice or fare hearing;

7. and finally stopping me from exercising my legal rights by banning me from all courts in Ontario(Justice Andre’ court order), 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 or does not want to deal with the matter(C58716 etc.-INCRIMINATE THE CROWN);

9. SUPREME COURT OF CANADA refuse to deal with the matter or does not want to deal with the matter(C58716 etc.-INCRIMINATE THE CROWN);

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

“

[21] On Jan 2015 the Applicant sent HRTO the following message;

“IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE ANY PROGRESS IN MY LIFE, I AM IMPEDED AT EVERY TURN.

4 Attachments

Preview attachment amended-form 1-peel police -stolen identification.pdf

Preview attachment VICTIM IMPACTCOMPLAINT AGAINST WILLIAM OSLEN HEALTH SYSTEM, MEDICAL STAFF.pdf

Preview attachment 2-AMENDED-EI-EXHIBIT X -FEDERAL SOCIAL TRIBUNAL APPEAL-GENERAL.pdf

Preview attachment Bundle 29.pdf

“

[22] On Jan 15, 2015 the Applicant sent HRTO the following message;

“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

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

“

[23] On Jan 14, 2015 the Applicant sent HRTO the following message;

“SILENT MURDER-PRESCRIPTION-NEW COMPLAINT-URGENT EMERGENCY TO OBTAIN MEDICATION

Inbox

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

Jan 14

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

So, it would seem that all the reposibility 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 ASA to thin my blood and reduce the chances of a stroke, but despencing this type of drug is not proper.

But, HARM dispence drugs every day to make drug addicts high or feel nice, while a cannot get an ASA to tin my blood and save my life. Not to mention, fill a proscription to save my life and maintain my health.

I am not a human being?

registrar@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca
newswatch@bbc.co.uk
wantchinatimes@want-daily.com
wantchinatimes@want-daily.com
editor.indiatimes@timesinternet.in
tarun.grover@indiatimes.co
newswatch@bbc.co.uk
washingtonbureau@naacpnet.org
inytsubs@nytimes.com
hollywoodbureau@naacpnet.org
isdr@un.org
america@aljazeera.net
ajam.community@aljazeera.net
gleanerna@sprint.ca
feedback@jamaica-gleaner.com
editorial@jamaicaobserver.com
representingyourself@gmail.com
cbcnewsottawa@cbc.ca
freedom4canada700@gmail.com
city@thestar.ca
LawCommission@lco-cdo.org
publicenquiries@ccla.org
mail@ccla.org
info@ombudsman.on.ca
representingyourself@gmail.com
cbcnewsottawa@cbc.ca

juliem@uwindsor.ca
representingyourself@gmail.com
cbcnewsottawa@cbc.ca
city@thestar.ca
fornat@thestar.ca
weekend@thestar.ca
mail@ccla.org
publicenquiries@ccla.org
dgibson@ombudsman.on.ca

Since,
I have no equal rights
to goods and services,
no HUMAN RIGHTS,
and no LEGAL RIGHTS.

Into the hands of

THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL,

and THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

DO I COMMIT MY LIFE!

I am the first,

who will be the next victim?

Is it you?

Since all my legal right/human rights was stolen in all of ONTARIO by BLG(Kathrine Kirkpatrick) via fraudulent means and based on a fallacy in her arguments(JUSTICE ANDRE'S ORDERS), to take all of my legal rights away in all of ONTARIO byway of PROVINCIAL legislation overcoming FEDERAL legislation 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 allege criminal offenses. In short the serves them, but they are not subject to it. Because of my just private prosecutions (Section 507.1 and 504), the following has happen to my person;

1. the CROWN 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 IN 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 prosecutions;

5. unlawful imprisonment while attempting to file private prosecution information;

6. conviction without notice or fare hearing;

7. 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 HOMELESS SHELTERS, OUT OF THE COLD SHELTERS, and SOUP KITCHENS.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE ANY PROGRESS IN MY LIFE, I AM IMPEDED AT EVERY TURN. JUST A SIMPLE TRANSITION OF EMPLOYMENT AND RESIDENCE CAUSE MY LIFE TO BE AT RISK, A BARING OR IMPEDING OF SOCIAL SERVICES, AND POSSIBLE DEATH.

SINCE I AM POWERLESS TO OBTAIN MEDICATION FOR MY HEALTH AND WELL BEING TO INSURE THAT I WILL CONTINUE TO LIVE UNDAMAGED, IT IS IN HRTO HANDS TO SECURE ME THE NECESSARY MEDICATION.

URGENT EMERGENCY TO OBTAIN MEDICATION

I came to Toronto to attend an Hospital to obtain necessary medication for health according to doctors best medical practice, only to discover that I don't qualify for a drug card from social services without the proper identification.

Recall that Officer Pekeski(2261) has stolen my Identification and fail to return it after I exercised my colour of right on more than one occasions.

The courts has refused to enforce the RULE OF LAW, at the minimum-directing Officer Pekeski(2261) to returned my belongings and have signed off on receiving all out standing pending personal belongings.

BUT i AM NOT A HUMAN BEING, deserving of equal services even if it means damaging my health or possible killing(social murder) me by withholding services from a Afro Canadian.

I require at the minimum an interim order for a drug card or the IMMEDIATE return of my identification from PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES.

please EMAIL ME TO PICK WITH THE ORDER OR HAVE ME PICK IT UP AT YOUR OFFICE. i AM IN TORONTO, STAY AT OUT OF THE COLD SHELTERS! I CAME FOR NECESSARY REQUIRED MEDICAL SERVICES

FACT-PURMUTATION:

1. Justice Andrea’ COURT ORDER banning me(Wayne Ferron) from all courts in ONTARIO and taking my legal rights and the ability to defend my civil and political rights. If I cannot defend my rights, then I have no rights including human rights!

2. HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL endorsement or order to suspend HRTO 2012-12585-I(2013 HRTO 1544).No resolution or restitution for this matter has damaged my life and my children life, in addition to crippling me in moving closure to normal living.

3. EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE Nov 26, 2014 decision to denied me employment insurance benefits for the false PREMISE OF “left your employment without just cause”. I have call EI(1800 206 7218) to offer more information, answer any question, but they always replied in the negative. I have called E. Hoffman (1 866 950 7227) at least four time to no avail at EI commission.

4. I was sent to SOCIAL SERVICES BY EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE for help, when there was no help pursuant to there policy.

5. ONTARIO-WORKS policy which denies social benefits on the bases of not having proper identification. I WAS DENIED A DRUG CARD in accordance with policy.

6. John Gerretsen (Attorney General [20 Oct 2011 – 25 March 2014]), choosing no to enforce the CRIMINAL of CANADAN , with respect to Officer Pekeski (2261) theft of my personal proper(HEALTH CARD etc.) is the cause of action for this matter.

The aforesaid permutation create the perfect conditions for the denial of SOCIAL SERVICES and creating an impediment to my health and well being.

Furthermore, this may cause my death or fatal injury. I leave my life (weather I live or die in the hands of HRCTO and EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (E. Hoffman – 1 866 – 950 -722 ext 5684)

HEALTH RISK:

i. On January 9, 2015 at St. Michael’s Emergency, my first blood pressure reading was 203/118.

ii. On January 9, 2015 at St. Michael’s Emergency, my second blood pressure reading was 196/183.

iii. On January 8, 2015, I was experiencing headaches in the back of my head, in addition to headaches at the side of my head.

iv. A few days before January 9, 2015, I was experiencing headaches.

v. I have provided a copy of the prescription I cannot afford, but desperately need

REASON FOR APPEAL:

1. Employment Insurance decision puts my life at risk and help to block me from accessing social services freely.

2. EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, premise that I left my employment for no just case is a false premise, for my premise given on page 2 and 3 in the MOTION RECORD. Unless, unlawfully using HWY 10 dangerously and unsafely which may result in my death in a reasonable thing to do in accordance with EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION.

3. I HAVE -$100.00 IN THE BANK, I SLEEP IN out of the cold shelters (HOMELESS SHELTERS) in my futile effort to access medical care and social services to take care of my health and secure employment..

4 Attachments

Preview attachment 2-EI-EXHIBIT X -FEDERAL SOCIAL TRIBUNAL APPEAL-GENERAL.pdf

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

Preview attachment Bundle 29.pdf

Preview attachment OW POLICY-0101.pdf

“

[24] On Jan 10, 2015 the Applicant sent HRTO the following message;

“PRESCRIPTION-NEW COMPLAINT-URGENT EMERGENCY TO OBTAIN MEDICATION

Inbox

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

Jan 10

to 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, HRTO-Registrar, Julie, fornat

EI -FEDERAL SOCIAL TRIBUNAL-NOTICE OF APPEAL .pdf

juliem@uwindsor.ca
representingyourself@gmail.com
cbcnewsottawa@cbc.ca
city@thestar.ca
fornat@thestar.ca
weekend@thestar.ca
mail@ccla.org
publicenquiries@ccla.org
dgibson@ombudsman.on.ca

Since,
I have no equal rights
to goods and services,
no HUMAN RIGHTS,
and no LEGAL RIGHTS.

Into the hands of

THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL,

and THE EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

DO I COMMIT MY LIFE!

I am the first,

who will be the next victim?

Is it you?

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 prosecutions;

5. unlawful imprisonment while attempting to file private prosecution information;

6. conviction without notice or fare hearing;

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

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

SINCE I AM POWERLESS TO OBTAIN MEDICATION FOR MY HEALTH AND WELL BEING TO INSURE THAT I WILL CONTINUE TO LIVE UNDAMAGED, IT IS IN HRTO HANDS TO SECURE ME THE NECESSARY MEDICATION.

URGENT EMERGENCY TO OBTAIN MEDICATION

Recall that Officer Pekeski(2261) has stolen my Identification and fail to return it after I exercised my colour of right on more than one occasions.

BUT i AM NOT A HUMAN BEING, deserving of equal services even if it means damaging my health or possible killing(social murder) me by withholding services from a Afro Canadian.

I require at the minimum an interim order for a drug card or the IMMEDIATE return of my identification from PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES.

please EMAIL ME TO PICK WITH THE ORDER OR HAVE ME PICK IT UP AT YOUR OFFICE. i AM IN TORONTO, STAY AT OUT OF THE COLD SHELTERS! I CAME FOR NECESSARY REQUIRED MEDICAL SERVICES

FACT-PURMUTATION:

4. I was sent to SOCIAL SERVICES BY EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE for help, when there was no help pursuant to there policy.

5. ONTARIO-WORKS policy which denies social benefits on the bases of not having proper identification. I WAS DENIED A DRUG CARD in accordance with policy.

The aforesaid permutation create the perfect conditions for the denial of SOCIAL SERVICES and creating an impediment to my health and well being.

Furthermore, this may cause my death or fatal injury. I leave my life (weather I live or die in the hands of HRCTO and EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (E. Hoffman – 1 866 – 950 -722 ext 5684)

HEALTH RISK:

i. On January 9, 2015 at St. Michael’s Emergency, my first blood pressure reading was 203/118.

ii. On January 9, 2015 at St. Michael’s Emergency, my second blood pressure reading was 196/183.

iii. On January 8, 2015, I was experiencing headaches in the back of my head, in addition to headaches at the side of my head.

iv. A few days before January 9, 2015, I was experiencing headaches.

v. I have provided a copy of the prescription I cannot afford, but desperately need

REASON FOR APPEAL:

1. Employment Insurance decision puts my life at risk and help to block me from accessing social services freely.

10 Attachments

Preview attachment court doesnot except emails-Gmail - RE CV 12-716-CHANGE OF ADDRESS.pdf

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

Preview attachment affidavit-ammended-ADRIAN SANCHEZ-BIKE ACCENDENT.pdf

Preview attachment justice andre vexation litigan order.pdf

Preview attachment RESOLUTION.pdf

Preview attachment justice andre vexation litigan order.pdf

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

Preview attachment EI -FEDERAL SOCIAL TRIBUNAL-NOTICE OF APPEAL .pdf

“

[25] On Jan 09, 2015 the Applicant sent HRTO the following message;

“PRESCRIPTION-NEW COMPLAINT-URGENT EMERGENCY TO OBTAIN MEDICATION

Inbox

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

Jan 9

to HRTO-Registrar, newswatch, Want, editor.indiati., tarun.grover, washingtonbure., Inyt, hollywoodbureau, isdr, america, ajam.community, gleanerna, feedback, editorial

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE ANY PROGRESS IN MY LIFE, I AM IMPEDED AT EVERY TURN. JUST A SIMPLE TRANSITION OF EMPLOMENT AND RESIDENCE CAUSE MY LIFE TO BE AT RISK, A BARING OR IMPEDING OF SOCIAL SERVICES, AND POSSIBLE DEATH.

SINCE I AM POWERLESS TO OBTAIN MEDICATION FOR MY HEALTH AND WELL BEING TO INSURE THAT I WILL CONTINUE TO LIVE UNDAMAGED, IT IS IN HRTO HANDS TO SECURE ME THE NECESSARY MEDICATION.

URGENT EMERGENCY TO OBTAIN MEDICATION

Recall that Officer Pekeski(2261) has stolen my Identification and fail to return it after I exercised my colour of right on more than one occasions.

BUT i AM NOT A HUMAN BEING, deserving of equal services even if it means damaging my health or possible killing(social murder) me by withholding services from a Afro Canadian.

I require at the minimum an interim order for a drug card or the IMMEDIATE return of my identification from PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES.

please EMAIL ME TO PICK WITH THE ORDER OR HAVE ME PICK IT UP AT YOUR OFFICE. i AM IN TORONTO, STAY AT OUT OF THE COLD SHELTERS! I CAME FOR NECESSARY REQUIRED MEDICAL SERVICES

FACT-PURMUTATION:

4. I was sent to SOCIAL SERVICES BY EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE for help, when there was no help pursuant to there policy.

5. ONTARIO-WORKS policy which denies social benefits on the bases of not having proper identification. I WAS DENIED A DRUG CARD in accordance with policy.

The aforesaid permutation create the perfect conditions for the denial of SOCIAL SERVICES and creating an impediment to my health and well being.

Furthermore, this may cause my death or fatal injury. I leave my life (weather I live or die in the hands of HRCTO and EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (E. Hoffman – 1 866 – 950 -722 ext 5684)

HEALTH RISK:

i. On January 9, 2015 at St. Michael’s Emergency, my first blood pressure reading was 203/118.

ii. On January 9, 2015 at St. Michael’s Emergency, my second blood pressure reading was 196/183.

iii. On January 8, 2015, I was experiencing headaches in the back of my head, in addition to headaches at the side of my head.

iv. A few days before January 9, 2015, I was experiencing headaches.

v. I have provided a copy of the prescription I cannot afford, but desperately need

REASON FOR APPEAL:

1. Employment Insurance decision puts my life at risk and help to block me from accessing social services freely.

3 Attachments

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

Preview attachment amended-form 1-peel police -stolen identification.pdf

Preview attachment Bundle 29.pdf

“

COURT REPORTS

John Gerretsen (Attorney General [20 Oct 2011 – 25 March 2014])

Jason Gordan - LINKAGE FACTOR

Deborah Krick - Linkage Factor

Sandra Theroulde - Linkage Factor

COURT SERVICE WORKERS

1.) Sandra Theroulde

2.) Gail Hugh

3.) Desiree Viceral

4.) Jason Gordan - LINKAGE FACTOR

5.) Deborah Krick - Linkage Factor

6.) Mr. Sam Guiyab, and Clerk of the-Registrar(Peggy) Manager's name is Mr. Michael MacLean if

7.) Lisa Stock

8.) Sandra Theroulde - Linkage Factor

9.) Ms. Kathy Barrett(SUPERIOR COURT TRIAL COORDINATOR)

10.) Ms. Desiree (Viceral-under the direction of her Manager, hid evidence)

11.) Clerk of the-Registrar (Peggy) and ….......... handle file missing evidence -

12.) Manager(Michael MacLean)

13.) Local Registrar(Samantha Moellar)

14.) Lisa Stock(A/Supervisor of Court Operations Criminal Court Services), of the Newmarket Courthouse

[26] Madam-Peggy-On the 28^th of September 2012 there were also another 3 addition customers waiting to do business with the Registrar. When two of those same Clients finished their court business, the Applicant presented immediately to the Clerk of the-Registrar (Peggy) with the completed SUBPENA TO A WITNESS forms, and politely requested if she could provide copies as proof of service that he filed the same forms as instructed by the Registrar’s Acting Manager(Michael MacLean). She closed the Registrar’s window on the Applicant while instructing him to; “get your own copies (four sheets of paper) and come back on Monday” for they are close or something to that effect.

[27] Jason A. Gorda - RESPONDENT's APPLICATION FACTUM(CR-12-70000061), was filed on the 4^th of October 2012 and signed on October 4^th, 2012 by Jason A. Gorda (Assistant Crown Attorney).

[28] Jason A. Gorda - RESPONDENT's BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(CR-12-70000061), was filed on the 4^th of October 2012 by Jason A. Gorda(Assistant Crown Attorney).

[29] Jason A. Gorda - RESPONDENT's APPLICATION RECORD(CR-12-70000061), was filed on the 4^th of October 2012 by Jason A. Gorda(Assistant Crown Attorney).

[30] Gail Hugh – swore positive oath to false manufactured evidence ,filed by Assistance Crown Attorney Jason A. Gorda, who asserted to be representing Attorney General John Gerretsen who held the said high public office from the 20^th of October 2011 to the 25^th of March 2014.

[31] Gail Hugh – “AFFDAVIT OF GAIL HUGH” under TAB 6 of the RESPONDENT's APPLICATION RECORD(CR-12-70000061), was dated in Toronto on an unknown date, and sworn on the 4^th day of October 2012, and commissioned on the 4^th day of October 2012 by Debra Moskovitz(Assistant Crown Attorney). Gail Hugh a court service worker, sworn positive oath to false manufactured evidence was commissioned by Debra Moskovitz and filed by Jason A. Gorda within the capacity of a lawful representative of Attorney General John Gerretsen.

[32] COURT SERVICE WORKER - On the 25^th of January 2012 the REGISTRAR of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Toronto Region) refuse to correct an obvious error (file labeled a CERTIORARI in large bold letters), but instead choose of their own accord and insisted to add the word MANDAMUS to the cover of COURT DOCKET file number CR-12-70000062 to accompany the word CERTIORARI. As far as the Applicant is concern, this is perverting the course of justice, since MANDUS and CERTIORARI are argued differently and have different requirements to be successful or even be a viable mode of appeal. The mode of appeal has been amended to reflect MANDUS ONLY, and the REGISTRAR has been notified in addition to being pointed to the relevant document, the scheduling Clerk has been notified...

[33] Guiyab Sam - release MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-7-061-12 (C56817) on an undocumented date...

[34] Azra Parvok- confirmed MATERIAL EXHIBITS for MO-7-061-12 (C56817) on the 17^thof July 2013

[35] x_COURTSEVICE WORKER- received file C56817 COA-RECORDS

[36] COURT SERVICE WORKERS - After filing the appeal for C56817, the Applicant tried on more than one occasion to see COURT OF APPEAL file C56817, but he was turned away and informed that he could not view the same file because the “Crown has it” or file C56817 is in the possession and control of the RESPONDENT Crown Attorney.

[37] (COURT OF APPEAL-RECORD'S Manager), was quite forceful and blatant in her denial of giving the Applicant equal service(Section. 1 of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT) in accessing public COURT documents/EXHIBITS under her carriage and control.

[38] COURT SERVICE WORKERS - Contrastingly and in the context of Section 482 of the C.C., the Crown took the COURT OF APPEAL file C56817 improperly from the same COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS without proper court documentation or without a judge’s order or without reasonable notice to the Applicant, and without the common decency of placing contended matter before an independent judge in the format of a fair hearing; but byway of a simple personal email (asserted by record’s Clerk) which the Applicant who was acting in the capacity of a Prosecutor in trying to affect the RULE OF LAW, does-not have access to his own file or public evidence.

[39] Deborah Krick - On the 13^th of August 2013, whom has carriage and control of matter M42322, admitted in open court to having possession of COURT OF APPEAL file C56817; she promised to return it to the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, and has done so after improperly having it in her possession for what seems like more than a month.

[40] COURT SERVICE WORKERS - Upon checking C56817 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-Records it was discovered that MANDAMUS APPEAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE (M61) bound in red covers was missing from COA file C56817, in addition to many case critical EXHIBITS.

[41] COURT SERVICE WORKERS – The Applicant starved, himself to obtain the money to pay for the said missing transcription of evidence, and now it has disappeared from COA file C56817 while the same file may have been under Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah Kirck carriage and control. The allege accuse(Ms. Joanne Stuart) in the Private Prosecution works in the same region, maybe even out of the same Office as Ms. Deborah Krick, and is at least a Professional colleague in representing the Attorney General of Ontario within the same public institution; so there is a public appearance of the aforementioned action being improper regardless of whether this is or is-not the case.

[42] CLERKS OF COA RECORDS- in early July 2013 denied the Applicant access to view public file C56817 upon request

[43] CLERKS OF COA RECORDS- COURT SERVICE WORKS in contradiction to court rules, assisted Ms. Deborah Krick in improperly removing COA public file C56817 without lawful authority from OSGOODE HALL COURTHOUSE, and without lawful authority help to denied the Canadian public access to public file C56817.

[44] COA Registrar - on the 23^th of July 2013 Clerk refuse to except and file “REQUISITION TO VIEW ALL MATERIALS FOR COURT FILE NO.: C56817 (SCJ-file number CR-12-61/CR-12-62/CR-98)”

[45] COA RECORDS - on the 23^th of July 2013 Clerk refuse to except and file “REQUISITION TO VIEW ALL MATERIALS FOR COURT FILE NO.: C56817 (SCJ-file number CR-12-61/CR-12-62/CR-98)”

[46] COA RECORDS - on the 23^th of July 2013 Clerk refuse to except and honour their own complete “REQUISITION” form to view public COA file C56817.

[47] COA RECORDS - on the 23^th of July 2013 Clerks refuse to articulate or provide an official time when the Applicant could schedule to view to view public COA file C56817.

[48] DEPUTY REGISTRAR (Sandra Therould) - did not refused to accept “NOTICE OF MOTION FOR DIRECTIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF RULES OF THE COURT AND EQUAL TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES FOR THE INFORMANT (C56817), Returnable on March 26, 2014 at 10:00 A.M.”The COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR accepted the motion, but did not file it nor assigned a motion number to it. C56817 was dismissed.

[49] DEPUTY REGISTRAR (Sandra Therould) - refused to accept “NOTICE OF MOTION BEFORE A PANEL TO APPEAL JUSTICE FELDMAN'S OPINION” FOR M43059; Justice Feldman's Order was selectively enforcing Justice Andres's order with respect to a criminal matter. After I was Threaten with a Security Officer being called and Justice Horton ruled against my appeal I sent matter to SUPREME COURT OF CANADA( SCC file # 35821). The registrar promised to review the matter with a TEAM OF LEGAL EXPERTS, there has been no formal disclosure to the aforesaid review or formal letter stating the reasons why the Applicant's motion was being refused by COURT SERVICE WORKERS and not place before a Judge to adjudicate the refusal or denial of the Applicant's motion being heard like other Canadians. No defect in the motion form or documentation was pointed to by the REGISTRAR.

[50] COA REGISTRAR/RECORDS - on the 30^th of July 2013 the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS and REGISTRAR “REQUISITION TO VIEW ALL MATERIALS FOR COURT FILE NO.: C56817 (SCJ-file number CR-12-61/CR-12-62),” byway of government registered mail(RW 958 576 670 CA)), to COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5. There has been no response or the honoring of the same REQUISITION.

[51] COA RECORDS - on the 30^th of July 2013 the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS and REGISTRAR “REQUISITION TO VIEW ALL MATERIALS FOR COURT FILE NO.: C56817 (SCJ-file number CR-12-61/CR-12-62),” byway of government registered mail(RW 958 576 670 CA)), to COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5. There has been no response or the honoring of the same REQUISITION.

[52] COA REGISTRAR/RECORDS - on the 1^st of August 2013 the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS “REQUISITION TO VIEW ALL MATERIALS FOR COURT FILE NO.: C56817 (SCJ-file number CR-12-61/CR-12-62),”(7 pages, Receipt No.: 58152) for copy costing $7.00), byway of personal service to the COA RECORDS-Clerks, at COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5. There has been no response or the honoring of the same REQUISITION.

[53] Desire Viceral - On the 17^th of September 2013 a COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARION-RECORD'S CLERK who goes by the name Desire Viceral and was instructed by the COA RECORDS Manager, tried to covertly give to the Applicant corroborative evidence that was not only placed before the Honourable Justice I.V.B. Nordheimer at the lower court; but also, proved conclusively that agents of the Crown not acting in the capacity of a lawful deputy of Her Majesty the Queen, manufactured evidence or misrepresented evidence in addition to swearing a false affidavit in support of the same improper evidence.

[54] Desire Viceral - On the 17^th of September 2013 the court documents which Desire Viceral try to covertly give to the Applicant under the guise of deception and direction from her superior(COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS MANAGER), are 5 copies of the January 18, 2008 TRANSCRIPT(07-02500/07-02559)...

[55] MINISTARY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL- On Jan 23, 2014 the Applicant filed on the CROWN LAW OFFICE CRIMINAL, “REQUISITION FOR

1.) Ms. Deborah Krick or on behalf of Ms. Joanne Stuart, to return forthwith the Applicant's confiscated legal instrument...,” There has been no response or the honoring of the same REQUISITION.

[56] on or about November 7, 2013, I served on the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS-RECORDS, “REQUESITION FOR Certified copy of EXHIBITS IN C.O.A file C56817” Some court reporters responded, but my Requisition was not honoured or completed.

[57] on or about January 8, 2014, I served on the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS-REGISTRAR, “REQUESITION FOR

2 certified copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013.

” There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.

[58] DEPUTY REGISTRAR (Sandra Therould) - on or about January 2, 2014, I served on the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR,

“REQUESITION FOR

1.) 7 Certified copy of EXHIBITS IN C.O.A file C56817

2.) copy of COURT MATERIAL LIST

3.) Request for the forthwith return of C56817's missing EXHIBITS & DOCUMENT.”

There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.

[59] SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(TORONTO) REGISTRAR - on or about January 4, 2014, the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR,

“REQUESITION FOR

ALL COURT MATERIALS FOR Court file Number CR-12-61/CR-12-62/CR-98 TO BE FORWARDED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL”

There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.

[60] COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR-on or about January 9, 2014, the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR,

“REQUESITION FOR

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE file No.: M147/12 and all it's contents to be sent to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO for APPEAL MATTER C56817”

There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.

[61] SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(NEWMARKET)-REGISTRAR-on or about January 13, 2014, the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR,

“REQUESITION FOR

4 certified copy of the honourable Justice Healy J. court order releast on August 10th, 2012;

4 certified copy of PROOF OF the WAYNE FERRON'S receipt of the honourable Justice Healy J. court order releast on August 10th, 2012”

There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.

[62] SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(BRAMPTON)-REGISTRAR-on or about January 20, 2014, the Applicant served on the SUPERIOR COURT-REGISTRAR,

“REQUESITION(Court file No.: CV-12-0716-00) for

4 certified copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order releast on July 8th, 2013;

4 certified copy of PROOF OF WAYNE FERRON'S receipt of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order released on July 8th, 2013

1 certified copy of AFFIDAVIT OF OF BRADBURY FERRON V. R.; court file No. 07-22259(S.C.J.), Justice I. Andre J. court order released on July 8th, 2013.”

There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.

[63] ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR - on or about January 20, 2014, the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR,

“REQUESITION

FOR

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO file C56817 to be present and accessable for use as supporting material in assisting the court in MATTER M42812”

There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.”

[64] COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR-on or about January 20, 2014, the Applicant served on the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR,

“REQUESITION FOR

1.) 4 certified copy of the C.O.A. filed Crow(Ananthan Sinnadurai) letter, which I personally requested; but the same letter was lost before it could be reproduced and certified while under the carriage and control of the REGISTRAR;

2.) a copy of Justice Andre endorsement and written articulated response, concerning the date of filing or the date the honourable Justice Andre, J. hand written (endorsement (CV-13-1060)) court order became was placed in C.O.A. file M82812;

3.) a copy of Justice Andre endorsement and written articulated response, concerning the date of filing or the date the honourable Justice Andre, J. typed court order (endorsement(CV-13-1060) ) was placed in C.O.A. file M82812;

4.) a copy and a written articulated response, concerning the date of filing or the date the honourable Justice Andre, J. July 17, 2013, released REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT(CV-13-1060) was placed in C.O.A. file M82812.”

There has been no response, nor a honoring of my requisition.

PLEASE SEE THE REQUISITIONS TO THE RECORDS, REGISTRAR AND MADAME DUPUTY, MOST OF THEM HAS NOT BEE FULFILLED. THE REQUESTED EVIDENCE WAS FOR THE COURT OF APPEAL AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, AND I HAVE BEEN RULED AGAINST IN THOSE CASES.

[65] Pursuant to David Muir , in Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462;

“[1] The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on February 11, 2011.

[2] On January 17, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the corporate respondent in which it directed that a Response to the Application must be filed with the Tribunal not later than February 21, 2012.

[3] As of the date of this Interim Decision the corporate respondent has not filed a Response, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to it been returned. [4] An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred may lead to various orders, including monetary compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a response or participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against individual and corporate respondents without their participation. The corporate respondent's attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which reads as follows:

5.5 Where an Application is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may:

a) deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application;

b) proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent;

c) deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding;

d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.

[5] The applicant has provided an address and fax number for the corporate respondent. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the corporate respondent by regular mail and fax.

[6] If the corporate respondent wishes to participate in this proceeding, it shall file a Response with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, together with an explanation of why the Response was not filed in accordance with the Notice of Application. If a Response is not received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the corporate respondent and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

Other Matters

[7] In his Application the applicant identified Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, court staff, as respondents. Due to an administrative error these individuals have not been delivered copies of this Application and have not had an opportunity respond. A copy of the Application and a copy of the Tribunal’s file will be delivered to the individual respondents who will be required to file a Response within 35 days of receiving the Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.

[8] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of July, 2012.

“Signed by”

__________________________________

David Muir

Vice-chair “

(Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462, File Number: 2011-08103-I , Adjudicator: David Muir )

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

26.3 A Request for Reconsideration must include:

a) reasons for the request, including the basis upon which the Tribunal is asked to grant the request for reconsideration;

b) submissions in support of the request; and,

c) remedy or relief sought.

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

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

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

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

d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

REASONS FOR REQUEST (26.3 (a.):

PREMISE:

1.) Did COURT SERVICE WORKERS reproduce public evidence in accordance with the rules the court?

2.) Are REQUISITION to the REGITRAR or RECORDS still pending?

3.) Are REQUISITION TO THE deputy clerk STILL PENDING;

4.) Did COURT SERVICE WORKERS provide equal service to the Applicant in accordance with COURT rules and laws?

5.) Did COURT SERVICE WORKERS deny the Applicant a fair hearing by suppressing evidence?

6.) Did COURT SERVICE WORKERS provide equal service to the Applicant in accordance with the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE?

7.) Is there a CONTRAVENTION NATURAL JUSTICE?

8.) Is there CONTRAVENTION PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS?

9.) Is there a contradiction of CASE LAW?

10.) Is there a contradiction of of the HRTO RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, and does the matte conform to some of the conditions in Section 26.5 of the Human Rights act for RECONSIDERATION?

SUBMISSIONS ON

SUPPORT OF REQUEST (26.3 (b.)(1):

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

[66] The following are RULES from CIVIL PROCEDURE of how, and the assumptions that must be made to properly defeat a claim in a vacuum or by way of a summary dismissal;

PROPERTIES of MOTION TO STRIKE IN A VACCUME

1) ASSUMPTION FOR STRIKING:

(i) STATEMENT OF CLAIM is true

(ii) RULE 19.02 - defendant is deemed to admit allegations in STATEMENT OF CLAIM.

2) CONSTRAINTS or SCOPE FOR STRIKING:

(i) RULE 21.02(1) - ...on a question of Law Raised by Pleading

(ii) RULE 21.02(2)(a)&(b) - ...no evidence is admissible on motion

(iii) RULE 21.02(1) - ...motion to strike shall be made promptly

[67] Pursuant to Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., the following scope or set of binding constraints are established by case law, some of which are the following;

“The complexity or novelty of the question that the plaintiff

wishes to bring to trial should not act as a bar to that trial taking

place.

(ii) Supreme Court of Canada

While this Court has had a somewhat limited opportunity to

consider how the rules regarding the striking out of a statement

of claim are to be applied, it has nonetheless consistently upheld

the "plain and obvious" test. Justice Estey, speaking for the

Court in Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada,

[1980] 2 S.C.R. 735, stated at p. 740:

As I have said, all the facts pleaded in the statement of

claim must be deemed to have been proven. {...}

The law then would appear to be clear. The facts pleaded are

to be taken as proved. "

(Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 page 23)

[68] Pursuant to Kassian v. The Attorney General of Canada;

“Burden of Proof

[46] All parties confirm that the test outlined in Connerty v. Coles, 2012 ONSC 5218, at para. 9, regarding the burden of proof on a summary judgment motion, has not been altered by the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hryniak. The test outlined in Connerty confirms that the burden of proof on a summary judgment motion must be considered in two steps:

1. First, the party who seeks summary dismissal must “move with supporting affidavit material or other evidence.” The moving party bears the evidentiary burden with respect to proof of showing that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.

2. It is only after the moving party has discharged its evidentiary burden of proving that there is no genuine issue which requires a trial for its resolution, that the burden shifts to the responding party to prove that its claim has a real chance of success based upon other evidence or specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial.”

(PARA[46], Kassian v. The Attorney General of Canada, 2014 ONSC 844)

[69] Pursuant to Frederick E. Gibson in Toledo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration);

“[5] The issue of the impact of an incomplete transcript on the interests of an Applicant has often been before this Court in immigration judicial reviews in recent years. ^[1]Typical of the reasoning of my colleagues in the cited authorities are the following comments of Justice Layden-Stevenson in the Randhawa matter, to the following effect:

Despite the capable and articulate arguments and submissions of counsel for the respondent, the applicant has persuaded me that the board's credibility findings with respect to the witnesses in question were fundamental to the decision. I am mindful of the comments of Evans J., as then was, in Hassan v. Canada ... that given the nature of a vacation hearing, an individual is entitled to the clearest assurance that the board has given full and fair consideration to the evidence.

[citations omitted]

[6] Although the hearing that is here under review was not a "vacation hearing", I am satisfied that the implications of the Convention refugee hearing here before the Court equally

entitle an individual such as the Applicant to the clearest assurance that the RPD has given full and fair consideration to his evidence.

{…}

[8] Unfortunately, the "entire ruling" is not on the record. I am satisfied that, in the absence of the "entire ruling", this Court is substantially disadvantaged in ensuring a full and fair hearing, not only in the interests of the Applicant, but also in the interests of the presiding member himself.”

(Frederick E. Gibson in Toledo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1572)

[70] Pursuant to ONTARIO CIVIL PRACTICE;

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

[71] Pursuant to Le Dain J. for the Supreme Court of Canada in Cardinal v. Director of Kent Institution;

“Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton's observations in Dyson, supra, at pp. 418-19, are particularly instructive:

Now it is unquestionable that, both under the inherent power of the Court and also under a specific rule to that effect made under the Judicature Act, the Court has a right to stop an action at this stage if it is wantonly brought without the shadow of an excuse, so that to permit the action to go through its ordinary stages up to trial would be to allow the defendant to be vexed under the form of legal process when there could not at any stage be any doubt that the action was baseless. But from this to the summary dismissal of actions because the judge in chambers does not think they will be successful in the end lies a wide region, and the Courts have properly considered that this power of arresting an action and deciding it without trial is one to be very sparingly used, and rarely, if ever, excepting in cases where the action is an abuse of legal procedure. They have laid down again and again that this process is not intended to take the place of the old demurrer by which the defendant challenged the validity of the plaintiff's claim as a matter of law. Differences of law, just as differences of fact, are normally to be decided by trial after hearing in Court, and not to be refused a hearing in Court by an order of the judge in chambers. Nothing more clearly indicates this to be the intention of the rule than the fact that the plaintiff has no appeal as of right from the decision of the judge at chambers in the case of such an order as this. So far as the rules are concerned an action may be stopped by this procedure without the question of its justifiability ever being brought before a Court. To my mind it is evident that our judicial system would never permit a plaintiff to be "driven from the judgment seat" in this way without any Court having considered his right to be heard, excepting in cases where the cause of action was obviously and almost incontestably bad. [Emphasis added.]”

(Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959 page 16&17)

l Since NATURAL JUSTICE is a fundamental property of PROCEDURAL, it logically follows that given that NATURAL JUSTICE is violated, then PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS is also contravene.

BILL OF RIGHTS

[72] Pursuant to the BILL OF RIGHTS, one's rights cannot be taken away without a fair hearing to plea one's cause or defend against the said action, which amounts to a denial of PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS and NATURAL JUSTICE; the BILL OF RIGHTS articulates as follows;

Section1.

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

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

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

Section 2.

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

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

l Therefore, there has been a contradiction of of the HRTO RULES, HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, and the matter conform to some of the conditions in Section 26.5 of the Human Rights act for RECONSIDERATION.

l Thus PREMISE (5. is proven.

[73] Pursuant to Singh v. Rainbow Circle Co-operative Inc.;

“[15] In this case, there is no question that the applicant failed to file a request to reactivate the Application within the time limit specified in Rule 14.4. Accordingly, the issue to be determined is whether the Tribunal ought to exercise its discretion under the Rules to extend the applicable time limit or to waive the strict application of the Rule, so as to allow the applicant to request reactivation of the Application in March 2014.

[16] In deciding whether it would be fair, just and expeditious to extend the time limit in this case, I must consider both the time limit in Rule 14.4 in the context of the overall scheme of the Code and Rules, as well as the reasons for the applicant’s request to extend it. The 60-day limit represents an attempt by the Tribunal to incorporate the values of fairness, justice and expeditiousness into this step of the proceedings and to balance those factors by acknowledging that parties will need a reasonable, but finite, amount of time to make a decision about reactivation. A request to extend the timeline must, therefore, be supported by some explanation. See Hudson v. Kingston (City),2013 HRTO 2006 (CanLII ).

[17] In my view, the applicant has provided some explanation for her delay. She was obtaining medical treatment from September 2013 to March 2014. She was hospitalized during the 60-day period following the Divisional Court decision on September 18, 2013, from October 28 to November 5, 2013. It was not until the Tribunal’s request for a status report on February 11, 2014 that the respondents requested a dismissal of the Application on February 19, 2014 for the applicant’s failure to request reactivation within the 60-day time period. In these circumstances, I exercise my discretion to waive strict compliance with the 60-day time period and reactivate the Application.

order

[18] The Application is reactivated.

[19] The respondents are directed to advise the Tribunal whether they are willing to proceed to mediation by April 25, 2014.

Dated at Toronto, this 11^th day of April, 2014.”

(FAIRNESS-RULE A3.1: Singh v. Rainbow Circle Co-operative Inc., 2014 HRTO 528)

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

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

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

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

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

“[191] The fact that there has been no disciplinary hearing in these cases also raises an aspect of fairness at issue in this case that was not at issue in Penner. Because in these cases there has been no disciplinary hearing, the effect of a dismissal by this Tribunal at this stage would be that applications alleging a breach of the Code would get no hearing at all. A dismissal without a hearing by this Tribunal on the basis solely of a decision made pursuant to a “gatekeeping” function (see Wall v. Independent Police Review Director, 2013 ONSC 3312, at para. 8) would be manifestly at odds with the intentions of the Legislature in creating the “direct access” system under the Code, as well as obviously unfair.

[192] I agree with my colleagues that s. 45.1 cannot and should not be interpreted to bar a Code application where do to so would result in an affront to basic principles of fairness. In addition, it appears to me that the use of the term “appropriately” in s. 45.1 of the Code calls for an assessment of the conclusion (result and remedy) in the other proceeding against the applicable provisions of the Code, and in light of the legislative intent behind the Code. In the circumstances of these cases, the substance of the Applications cannot be found to have been “appropriately dealt with”.

DISPOSITION

[193] In respect of all three Applications before us, I would exercise my discretion under s. 45.1 of the Code, for all of the reasons noted above, to refuse the respondents’ Requests to Dismiss these Applications, and to allow them to proceed in the Tribunal’s process. I agree with the terms of the Order as set out in the Decision of my colleagues.

(PARA[191] TO [193], Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board 2013hrto1298-1)

DUE PROCESS OF LAW:

[76] Pursuant to the BILL OF RIGHTS, one's rights cannot be taken away without a fair hearing to plea ones cause or defend against the said action;

2. ...be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to

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

REMEDY (S. 26.3 c):

[77] The applicant respectfully request THAT THE HONOURABLE COURT ORDER:

1. Hearing to resolve legal issues;

2. Official response from the RESPONDENT

3. An order to DISCLOSE INFORMATION proving one or more of the following respondents is a judicial officer or acted in the capacity of a judicial officer over any of my matters Joy Webster, Orbe Santiago, Arlene Gorewicz, John Gerretsen;

4. written articulated reasons of why there is no JURISDICTION, and furthermore is it because discrimination was left blank in HRTO FORM 1 (Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462, File Number: 2011-08103-I , Adjudicator: David Muir )?

5. written articulated reasons of why the Applicant’s RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS(2014-19377-I), was not referred to or mentioned in the reasons for judgement or FINAL JUDGEMENT (2014-19377-I) ?

6. written articulated reasons of why HRTO-TRIBUNAL has not honoured nor completed the Applicant’s filed FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST(2015-19792-I ET AL), but has allowed it to be in a state of Appeal under the state of “DEEMED REFUSAL”?

7. written articulated reasons of why the HRTO-Registry did not send a NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION 2015-19792-I?

8. an order for the HRTO-Registrar, to accept a new completed FORM 1 with the discrimination section filled out and not left blank, so that the matter can proceed to trial under due process of law.

9. an order to honour and complete the Applicant’s FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST(2014-19792-I ET AL), so that he may know his case and is enabled to give full answer to the honourable HRTO - TRIBUNAL.

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

[78] Pursuant to Madam Kathleen Wynne;

“Dear Minister Meilleur:

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

{...}

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

Your ministry’s specific priorities include:

Promoting Fairness and Access to Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[83] The Province of Quebec Preamble R.S.Q., chapter C-12 Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms asserts;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of which is respectfully submitted.

June 23, 2015

_____________________________

Wayne FERRON(Informant/APPLICANT)

VAGOBOND

leegalpoet@gmail.com

AS A PROTEST TO THE UNREASONABLE RESPONDENT DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585.I, i PLACED ON THE BACK OF MOST OF MY LEGAL PRIVATE PROSECUTION DOCUMENTS THE FOLLOWING IS THE CROSS I HAD TO CARRY AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE DELAY OF HRTO 2012-12585-I, WITHOUT A NOTICE TO DEFER (2012-12585-I) ;

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

Email: hrto.registrar@ontario.ca

AND TO:

John Gerretsen

Attn. Deborah Krick

The Attorney General of Ontario

CRIMINAL LAW BRANCH

6th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

fax: 416 326 4015

AND TO:

Gail Hugh

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GENERAL

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT REPORTER'S OFFICE(TORONTO REGION)

361 University Queen Avenue

Room 310

Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1T3

Tel: 416 327 5565

Fax: 416 327 5886

AND TO:

Sandra Theroulde

Desiree Viceral

The Clerk of the Court--Registrar

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Osgoode Hall

130 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5

Tel: 416 327 5020

Fax: 416 327 6032

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

WAYNE FERRON

-versus-

John Gerretsen et al

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14th floor, Toronto, ON M7A 2A3

Phone: 416-326-1519

___________________________

RECONSIDERATION

for honesty, honour, integrity, fairness, equity, and the application of DUE PROCESS OF LAW and the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW

____________________________________________

Wayne FERRON

VAGABOND

leegalpoet@gmail.com

There are no posts in this folder...

PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

Author Information

RECONSIDERATION: LEGAL BULLING IN THE COURT HOUSES

Folder Contents

Misleading Justice

Marginal note:Perjury

Marginal note:Video links, etc.

{...}

Punishment

Marginal note:Corroboration

Marginal note:Idem

Marginal note:Application

Marginal note:Witness giving contradictory evidence

Marginal note:Evidence in specific cases

Fabricating evidence

Marginal note:Offences relating to affidavits

Marginal note:Obstructing justice

Marginal note:Idem

Marginal note:Idem

Public mischief

Marginal note:Punishment

Marginal note:Compounding indictable offence

Marginal note:Exception for diversion agreements

Fraud

ffences of negligence — organizations

Marginal note:Other offences — organizations

Marginal note:Accessory after the fact

Marginal note:Where one party cannot be convicted

Marginal note:Attempts

Marginal note:Question of law

HRTO FILE: 2014-19377-I Wayne Ferron v. Toronto Metropolitan Police Services Division and Officer Green

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

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

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

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

“attend. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COORDINATOR

Wayne Ferron <leegalpoet@gmail.com>

“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>

Promoting Fairness and Access to Justice

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

Free Membership

Who's online

Who's new