COURT SERVICE WORKERS       HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19681-I

HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19680-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

________________________________________

CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT OF DIRECTIONS

on

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Is the HRTO accepting or rejecting HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19680-I, and HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19681-I for RECONSIDERATION. Or should I go ahead and Appeal it to the next level of COURT.

______________________________________________________

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

________________________________________

CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT OF DIRECTIONS

on

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Is the HRTO accepting or rejecting HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19680-I, and HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19681-I for RECONSIDERATION. Or should I go ahead and Appeal it to the next level of COURT.

______________________________________________________

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

To HRTO-REGISTRAR;

 

[1]    CONFIRMATION:

I the Applicant (Wayne Ferron) is in receipt of the HRTO direction on the morning of Wednesday, June-24-2015 byway of email.

 

[2]   RICHARD HENNESSY MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS:

Take notice, that Mr. Richard Hennessy and the HRTO-REGISTRA has been trying to convince the Applicant (Wayne Ferron) to file and serve legal papers since the year 2012. I finally succumb to this untrusted method of communication, serving, and filing legal papers; only because my impecunious status, financial decimation, none income status, and homeless vagabond status.

 

[3]   LEGAL/FINANCIAL  BARRIER to

 IMPEDE OR BLOCK ACCESS TO JUSTICE:

Given that Access to Justice is both the ATTORNEY GENERAL’S , and The GOVERNMENT OF ONTARION official public policy;  HRTO-LAST DIRECTION s, has erected a wall which will impede justice, decrease judicial efficiency, increase cost of the proceedings, impede truth finding  because the finding of evidence is being impeded, and punish the APPLICANT while rewarding the RESPONDENT with less evidence being filed to help prove the same RESPONDENTS culpability of the allegations of the HUMAN RIGHTS complaints. In addition to increasing the pain and suffering of a HOMELESS VAGOBOND who is trying to access justice with a factual status of noNE income.

 

[4]   QUESTIONS NEEDING  WRITTEN  ANSWERS  ASAP:

Please send to the address below a letter detailing and answering the following questions:

1.  Will the HRTO-REGISTRAR be excepting or rejecting the two RECONSIDERATIONS (2014- 19680-I & 2014-19681-I), for filing or is the HRTO-REGISTRAR going be rejecting my last two reconsideration filing?

 

2.  Should I APPEAL RECONSIDERATIONS (2014- 19680-I & 2014-19681-I), because HRTO-REGISTRAR OR HRTO-TRIBUNAL has rejected the Applicants last two legal filing?

 

[5]   ADDRESS TO MAIL RESPONSE TO:

HOMELESS SHELTER

ST. SIMON’S SHELTER

BED#3 – 525Bloor Street East,

Toronto, Ontario, M4W 1J1

 

[6]   TAKE NOTICE: Pursuant to the Honorable Vice Chair David Muir , in Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462 infers or demonstrates in a practical way, that HRTO has jurisdiction over both HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19681-I, and HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19681-I.

 

[6] 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 “

 

 

[5] 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

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

 

                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.

 

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

                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.

 

                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)

 

 

[5] Pursuant to Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry;

“Access to justice

It is clear that we must remain vigilant to ensure our system of civil justice is accessible to the broad spectrum of society and not just the wealthy or those whose costs of litigation are insured. The cost of conducting litigation has increased significantly over recent years. In 1996, a review of the civil justice system headed by Justice Robert Blair and former Assistant Deputy Minister Sandra Lang made many important recommendations that addressed concerns about the increased complexity and the increased costs of litigation. Most of those important recommendations have now been implemented.

However, I am convinced that the need to ensure the accessibility of our civil justice system is an issue of such importance that we should continuously monitor our performance in this area. In this regard, we must recognize the growing phenomenon of the unrepresented litigant. Although this situation is most predominant at the trial level, we are also seeing a rise of unrepresented parties in the Court of Appeal.

Because of the concerns about access to justice, I have initiated discussions with others involved in the administration of justice with a view to establishing a project that would develop recommendations for approaches that will assist in ensuring greater accessibility to the civil justice system in the future.”

(Report of the Chief Justice of Ontario Upon the Opening of the Courts of Ontario for 2003 Chief Justice R. Roy McMurtry Welcome and introduction, http://ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/archives/ocs/2003.htm )

 

 

FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP:

[79] There is a relationship of trust which exist between the individual, the State and its institutions. A fiduciary relationship!

“2. Process Preoccupation

 

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

 

Even alternate dispute resolution mechanisms, hailed at first as the expeditious alternatives to cumbersome court procedures, are themselves turning into procedural mimics of the court system. Arbitrations all too often end up being almost as lengthy, complex, or expensive as a court case.

In 1906, the then Dean of Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, made a speech to the American Bar Association entitled

 

"The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice."

 

And what was the main cause of dissatisfaction in 1906 according to Pound? Uncertainty, delay and expense ... [are] direct results of the ... backwardness of our procedure. The effect of our exaggerated contentious procedure is not only to irritate parties, witnesses and jurors in particular cases, but to give to the whole community a false notion of the purpose and end of law. Let's put Pound's almost 100-year old observation in historical context. The horse and buggy of 1906 have been replaced by cars and planes; morphine for medical surgery has been replaced by anaesthetics, and the surgical knife by the laser; caveat emptor has been replaced by consumer law; child labour has been replaced, period; a whole network of social services and systems is in place to replace the luck of the draw that used to characterize employment relationships; the phonograph has been replaced by the compact disc player; the hegemony of the majority has been replaced by the assertive diversity of minorities; and adoring wives have been replaced by exhausted ones. And yet, with all these profound changes in how we travel, live, govern, and think, none of which would have been possible without fundamental experimentation and reform, we still conduct civil trials almost exactly the same way as we did in 1906. Any good litigator from 1906 could, with a few hours of coaching, feel perfectly at home in today's courtrooms. Could a doctor from 1906 feel the same way in an operating room? If the medical profession has not been afraid over the century to experiment with life in order to find better ways to save it, can the legal profession in conscience resist experimenting with old systems of justice in order to find better ways to deliver it?

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I know this has been a difficult time for the legal profession. Through it all, most lawyers carry on with pride and professionalism, and with more than a touch of frustration at their seeming inability to synchronize their professional reputations with fluctuating public expectations. There remains, however, one public expectation that does not fluctuate. It is the expectation that the profession will always, no matter the times or their permutations, behave professionally. It is an expectation to which the profession has always expressed a deep commitment, and it is an expectation to which most lawyers remain deeply committed.

The legal system represents the ideals of the public, and because as lawyers we are the interpreters and translators of those ideals, it is therefore a system that deserves our idealism, courageously and optimistically.

 

Having set the cluttered stage, what can be done to reinstate a commitment to professionalism as the lawyer's - and the public's perception of the lawyer's - transcendent vision? And, more particularly, what can be done by the Law Society?

 

The Law Society has two constituencies: lawyers and the public. These are utterly compatible and indispensably linked. The Law Society should be seen to be the profession's best professional voice and the public's best ear. Unfortunately, it is not seen at all, or, when it is seen, it is seen by lawyers when it announces a restrictive or expensive measure, and it is seen by the public when it announces the consequences of professional misconduct. These sightings may be unavoidable and, at times, even salutary, but they are not happy messages. Not that the Law Society needs to keep everyone happy. It can't. But if these anxiety-producing pronouncements are all we see, can we be faulted for wondering if there isn't a more positive message the Law Society could be seen to feel responsible for.

 

According to the Earnscliffe Report, the Law Society's Nielsen ratings ranged from "never watch" through "hardly watch" to "hate to watch." In other words, somewhere between irrelevant and obstructive.

 

This is troubling to someone like me who sees the Law Society theoretically as crucially relevant as the guardians both of our independence and of the public's confidence in our right to be independent. I see the report, therefore, as a wake-up call and a wonderful millennial opportunity for the Law Society to reformulate its relationship to its professional and general publics, and to redefine its functions accordingly.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE USED TO

REMIDY UNREASONABLE DELAY:

[242]

“In their reflection of these principles, the courts have also indicated frequently that they are more concerned with the appearance of bias than with the actual existence of bias. Two justifications are generally advanced for this posture. First, the courts recognize the difficulty of determining in any satisfactory manner whether a person is actually biased in the sense of being unable to put any potentially illegitimate interests out of her or his conscious or subconscious mind. Second, the aphorism that it is as equally important that justice be seen to be done as that justice actually be done has been adopted specifically as a governing policy in is domain. The reputation of the justice system for integrity and impartiality is diminished in a way that is contrary to the public interest if the participants and the public generally have grounds for believing that an adjudicator may be subject to illegitimate influences or predisposition .”

 

(ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; David J. Mullan. David Mullan, 2001, page 322, para 1)

 

[243]

“...it is not enough that justice be done,

it must appear to be done. It is also a well established principle that audi alteram partem is a rule of natural justice so firmly adopted by the common law that it applies to all those who fulfill judicial functions and it is not excluded by inference. See: L’Alliance des Professeurs Catholiques de Montréal v. Labour Relations Board [1953] 2 S.C.R. 140, per Rinfret C.J. at p. 154:

 

[TRANSLATION]  The rule that no one should be convicted or

deprived of his rights without a hearing, and especially without even

being informed that his rights would be in question, is a universal rule

of equity, and the silence of a statute should not be relied on as a basis

for ignoring it. In my opinion, there would have to be nothing less

than an express statement by the legislator for this rule to be

superseded: it applies to all courts and to all bodies required to make

a decision that might have the effect of destroying a right enjoyed by

an individual. “

 

(Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; page 67)

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of which is respectfully submitted.

 June 25, 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) ;

 

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.

 

 

TO

HRTO – Registrar       

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14th floor

Toronto, ON M7A 2A3

Phone: 416-326-1519

Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322

Fax: 416-326-2199

Email: hrto.registrar@ontario.ca

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 ___________________________ CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT OF DIRECTIONS on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 ____________________________________________ Wayne FERRON VAGABOND leegalpoet@gmail.com