wordpress.com · web viewaffidavit of private prosecutor pursuant to rule 26 pursuant to rule 26: i...

-1-

I AM BEING FORCED TO CONTRAVENE THE CRIMINAL CODE Court file No.: C56817

AFFIDAVIT

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

BETWEEN:

WAYNE FERRON APPELLANT/INFORMANT

-and-

HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT of Wayne FERRON(PRIVATE PROSECUTOR/ INFORMANT)

Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.

-2-

AFFIDAVIT OF PRIVATE PROSECUTOR Court file No.: C56817

I, Wayne FERRON (Private Prosecutor/Informant) of the City of Toronto, in

the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY :

[1] The CROWN(Ms. Krick) has removed the public evidence in file

C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS, to the ATTORNEY

GENERAL'S OFFICE without lawful cause nor lawful permission nor a

court order from a Judge of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO with a

wanton disregard for DUE PROCESSS of fair criminal proceedings.

[2] The CRITICAL PUBLIC EVIDENCE in file C56817 has been sanitized from

the same file while C56817 has been under the carriage and control of the

CROWN(ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO).

[3] The CRITICAL PUBLIC EVIDENCE in file C56817 has been removed by

COURT SERVICE WORKERS from the same file, while C56817 has been under

the carriage and control of the CROWN(ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

ONTARIO) and hidden in another file without lawful cause or the

order of a Judge of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

[4] Madam Deputy Registrar has not responded to any of my requisitions

for copies of documents needed to produce my APPEAL BOOK(C56817) in

addition to perfecting the appeal.

Affidavit of PRIVATE PROSECUTOR Pursuant to Rule 26

-3-


[5] COURT REPORTER'S has failed to complete my TRANSCRIPT(C56817)

ORDERS to perfect appeal C56817.

[6] I have been denied the ability to affect a MOTION FOR

DIRECTION(C56817) byway of a “VEXATIVE LITIGAN ORDER” to place

before a court of competent jurisdiction the problems of missing court

EXHIBITS(C56817), pending TRANSCRIPTS(C56817), and the

CROWN'S(Ms. Krick) unlawful removal of C56817 from the COURT OF

APPEAL-RECORDS.

[6] MOTION FOR DIRECTION(C56817) was already placed before a

court, but I was denied the fair and just application of PROCEDURAL

FAIRNESS to have the issues of law resolved.

[7] My time and resources are being stolen away or redirected from

matters at the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA(SCC matters are being

prejudice against my person), by forcing me to attend HEARINGS(C55532- Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.

-4-


STATUS COURT) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO in contravention of

the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT ORDER” and the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, to be

presided over by the honourable Justice Watt.

[8] I was not given Proper service or disclosure of the honourable

Healey's August 10th, 2012 wherein she determined(RULE 34.02) my

person, and private prosecution to be vexatious, frivolous, has no prospect

of success, and an abuse of process which waste court resources without

any presentation of evidence or fulfillment of court orders against

the Crown(Mr. Frank Giordano). The honorable Justice Healey

DISPOSITION for CROWN'S MOTION(CR 12-1264 ET AL) states as follows;

“...12-01262, 12-01264, 12-01265, and 12 – 999 999, This court endorse that each of these applications shall be dismissed as being friviolous and vexatious, as none has a reasonable prospect of success and are, additionally, an abuse of process and waste of the court's limited resources...”

[9] Motion M42322 was requisition for LEAVE TO APPEAL the honourable

Justice Healey August 10, 2012 ruling which was not served on my person. I

found out about it when the CROWN (Mr. Jason Gorda, an agent of John

Gerretsen the Attorney General for Ontario) tried to determine my

person to be a “VEXATIVE LITIGANT” in the SUPERIOR COURT OF

JUSTICE (TORONTO REGION), while about the business of a private

prosecution (M61) against Ms. Joanne Stuart.


-5-


[10] On March 26, 2014 the Crown requested of the honourable Justice

Watt that leave be given to my person even though I never requested leave

from the honourable court nor did I give the Crown authority to act on my

behalf nor as my legal counsel.

[11] The COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO has never given me leave, but

asserts on many occasions that leave carries a high requirement.

[12] I was never giving leave for C51190, to file new evidence denied me in

MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE C51190(M38706) BY THE

CROWN(Ms. Joanne Stuart) after being unlawfully imprisoned by PEEL

REGIONAL POLICE and ; WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM after they

prevented me from perfecting appeal C51190.

[13] Furthermore, I was denied NATURAL JUSTICE for M38706 which is

still pending and has never been heard by the COURT OF APPEAL FOR

ONTARIO; in addition to the DUPUTY REGISTRAR changing the original file

numbers at a later date to fraudulently skew the history of the MOTIONS Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.

-6-


for C51190 without official notice or an initialized note of the

reasons for the changes accompanying the covert changes in the record

of the motions for C51190.

[14] I was never giving leave for M42812 for the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT

COURT ORDER”, even though Ms. Kirkpatrick fraudulently procured

Justice .I. Andre J. “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” release on July

8, 2013 in addition to failing to show up for a motion adjourned in her favor

while she was absent in court and she promised Justice Feldman(seized with

M42812) she would attend the March 5, 2013 hearing.

[15] On the 13th of August 2013 while before the Honorable Justice

Pepall, Ms. Krick for the Crown filed the honourable Justice I. Andre J.

court order release on July 8th, 2013, in court to defeat Private Prosecution

matter M42322.

[16] M42322 was adjourned to September 13, 2013 since Ms. Krick had

improperly removed C56817 which the Applicant was relying on for the

same matter at the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, without a court order or

judicially sanctioned permission.


-7-


[17] On the 13th of September 2013, the Honorable Justice Watt decline

to exercise his Jurisdiction or fulfill his obligation to insure a fair hearing in

accordance with PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, in accordance with my request for

the assistance of Duty Council, and in accordance with the authority of the

COURT OF APPEAL’S established case law (Pal Vasarhelyi ONCA 397-

C50698) which the applicant placed before the same Honourable Justice.

[18] Furthermore, I begged, and I plead for about twenty times or more to

speak to DUTY COUNCIL, in addition to describing the materials the

informant wished to discuss with duty council, and I even invited the

Honourable Justice Watt to review the same materials.

[19] The Honourable Justice Watt, never informed, nor invited, nor offered

my person access to DUTY COUNCIL for legal assistance in accordance

with R. V. Littlejohn & Tirabasso, R. v. Rowbotham, R. v. McGibbon,

and the same Judges inherent jurisdiction to insure fairness in his court;

whom is both a learned COURT OF APPEAL Judge in addition to Justice Watt

having many Case Law to his name (some of which I have used and is using).


-8-


[20] On the 13th of September 2013, the Honorable Justice Watt

dismissed my Private Prosecution matter M42322 while I was requesting to

speak to DUTY COUNSEL and never requested an adjournment.

[21] The Honorable Justice Watt never gave me leave and dismissed

my Private Prosecution matter M42322 even though I filed all required

material for an application, while the CROWN(Ms. Krick) filed no materials

except for the RESPONDENT MOTION (M42322) containing a copy of the

“VEXATIVE LITIGAN ORDER” the CROWN was attempting to use to

defeat my PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS(CR – 12-01264 ET AL).

[22] On the 13th of December 2013, the Honorable Justice La Forme

adjourned motion for direction C56817 (M42921) concerning many

missing exhibits (C56817), outstanding TRANSCRIPTS (C56817), the

Crown improperly removing C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS

without lawful permission, to December 18, 2013.

[23] On the 18th of December 2013, the Honorable Justice Jurianz

excepted my late filing of FACTUM C56817(M42921) concerning many

missing exhibits(C56817), outstanding TRANSCRIPTS(C56817), and the

Crown(Ms. Krick) improperly removing C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL

RECORDS without lawful permission.


-9-


[24] I was not given Proper service or disclosure of the honourable Justice

I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013.

[26] Pursuant to the COURT OF APPEAL- REGISTRAR's copy of the

honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013; the

COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR received their copy of the said “VEXATIVE

ORDER” on October 15, 2013.

[27] Furthermore the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on

July 8th, 2013, directs for a copy of the same order to be sent to all

SUPERIOR COURTS, ALL DIVISIONAL COURT, and the COURT OF

APPEAL FOR ONTARIO; but oddly, Justice I. Andre J. did not direct for the

same court order to be sent to Wayne Ferron, whom the same order is

against or affects the most in removing all my legal rights in all courts in

all of Ontario.

[28] Justice I. Andre J. orders that a copy of the same order be forthwith

delivered to the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL, and every region of the SUPE-

RIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, and DIVISIONAL COURT; the Honourable Jus- Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.

-10-


tice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” which came to the Applicant's attention on

August 20, 2013 at about 6 a.m.. VIA the Crown's(Ms. Krick) unsigned

RESPONDENT'S MOTION RECORD(M42322), on August 13, 2012.

[29] The copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. typed court order

which was located in the Crown's(Ms. Krick) unsigned RESPONDENT'S

MOTION RECORD(M42322), was missing significant information, mainly;

Parties to Proceeding, Title of Proceeding, and name of originating

COURT(AUTHORITY) for the same court order.

[30] On January 15th, 2014 I requested from the COURT OF APPEAL

REGISTRAR a certified copy of ,the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court

order release on July 8th; the Registrar refused to certified the same

copied order in their file(M42812) which was not properly disclosed to

my person.

[31] On January 15th, 2014 I discovered that the honourable Justice I.

Andre J. written court order release on July 8th, the honourable Justice I.

Andre J. typed court order, and the honourable Justice I. Andre J.

REASON FOR JUDGEMENT release on July 17th were all placed in COURT

OF APPEAL file (M42812) without lawful service to my person nor

proof of service.


-11-


[32] Furthermore, the honourable Justice I. Andre J. written court

order release on July 8th, the honourable Justice I. Andre J. typed court

order, and the honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASON FOR JUDGEMENT

release on July 17th had been in the possession of the COURT OF APPEAL-

REGISTRAR’S possession since October 15, 2013.

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

Reasons

393. The Court may deliver reasons for judgment

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

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

Drafting of order

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

Pronouncement of judgment

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


http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-106/latest/sor-98-106.html#sec369_smooth

-12-


Copies to be sent

395. (1) Subject to subsection 36(3), the Administrator shall send without de-lay a copy of every order made and of any reasons given other than in open court to all parties(a) by registered mail;(b) by electronic means, including facsimile and electronic mail; or

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

Proof of receipt

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

SOR/2010-177, s. 6.

[34] The aforementioned requirements of the Federal Courts Rules,

SOR/98-106 has not been fulfilled.

[35] Pursuant to THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH ACT

(C.C.S.M. c. C280) ;

WHEN PROCEEDINGS MAY BE HEARD In absence of opposite party 3.03(2) No motion, reference, examination, assessment of costs or other matter, except a motion made without notice, shall proceed before a judge, master or other officer in the absence of the opposite party until 15 minutes after the time fixed for it.



http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-106/latest/sor-98-106.html#sec36subsec3_smooth

-13-


[36] Pursuant to Practice Direction Concerning Civil Appeals in the

Court of Appeal (filed with the Secretary of the Civil Rules

Committee on October 7, 2003);

5.3 Confirmation of Motion

1. A party who makes a motion on notice to another party shall :(a) confer or attempt to confer with the other party; (b) not later than 2 p.m. two days before the hearing date, give the Regis-trar a confirmation of motion (Form 37B, below, or as set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure) by sending it by fax, (416-327-5032), by e-mail (COA.E-file), or by leaving it at the court office; and (c) send a copy of the confirmation of motion to the other party by fax or e-mail.2. If no confirmation is given, the motion shall not be heard, ex-cept by order of the court.3.A party who has given a confirmation of motion and later determines that the confirmation is no longer correct shall imme-diately give the Registrar a corrected confirmation of motion (Form 37B) and send a copy of the corrected confirmation of motion to the other party.

[37] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR

ONTARIO, a certified copy of the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court

order release on July 8th, 2013 by formal written REQUESTION; there was

no response to my written REQUESTION, and I have been refused a

certified copy by the same REGISTRAR on more than one occasions.

[38] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the SUPERIOR COURT OF

JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION), a certified copy of the Honourable


http://www.ontariocourtforms.on.ca/english/civil

javascript:SafeMail();

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900194_e.htm

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900194_e.htm

-14-


Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 by formal

REQUESTION; there was no response to my written REQUESTION,


JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION), a certified copy of the proof of

receipt for the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July

8th, 2013 by formal REQUESTION; there was no response to my written

REQUESTION.


JUSTICE (CENTRAL WEST REGION), a certified copy of the confirmation

of motion (CV 13-1060) before the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. by

formal REQUESTION; there was no response to my written REQUESTION.

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

ENDORSEMENT BY JUDGE OR OFFICER59.02 (1) An endorsement of every order shall be made on the ap-peal book and compendium, record, notice of motion or notice of ap-plication by the court, judge or officer making it, unless the circum-stances make it impractical to do so. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.02 (1) ; O. Reg. 19/03, s. 10.

(2) Where written reasons are delivered,

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

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

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


https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest/rro-1990-reg-194.html#sec59.02subsec2_smooth

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest/rro-1990-reg-194.html




-15-


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

PREPARATION AND FORM OF ORDERPreparation of Draft Formal Order59.03 (1) Any party affected by an order may prepare a draft of the

formal order and send it to all other parties represented at the hearing

for approval of its form. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.03 (1) ;

[43] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the Ms. Kirpatrick, a copy of the

confirmation for the motion (CV 13-1060) before the Honourable Justice I.

Andre J..

[44] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the Ms. Kirpatrick, a copy of the

proof of evidence use to convince the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. that

I have or may have had legal proceedings at any DIVISIONAL COURT

in ONTARIO.

[45] I Wayne Ferron, have requested of the Ms. Kirpatrick, to cross

examine AFFIDAVIT OF BRADBURY FERRON V. R.; court file No. 07-

22259 (S.C.J.) Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick filed with the SUPERIOR COURT OF Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.



-16-


JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-REGISTRA, and which she used as proof or

evidence to persuade the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. that I am a

VEXATIVE LITIGANT by formal REQUESTION; Ms. Kirkpatrick failed to

attend the March 5, 2014 Hearing even though she promised Justice

Feldman on January 29, 2014 that she would be attending.

[46] Ms. Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick who is counsel for YORK REGIONAL PO-

LICE SERVICES et al failed to attend motion M42812 before the hon-

ourable Justice Felman on January 29th, 2014.

Similarly, Ms. Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick who is counsel for YORK REGIONAL

POLICE SERVICES et al failed to attend HEARING M42812 on March 5th,

2014 after promising the honourable Justice Felman on January 29th, 2014

that she would do so, after being called by a CLEARK of the COURT OF AP-

PEAL FOR ONTARIO over the speaker phone on January 29th, 2014, Ms.

Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick was offered an adjournment despite her

nonattendance on January 29th, 2014 while the honourable Justice Feld-

man was seized with the same legal matter(M42812).

[47] The honourable Justice Horigan confirmed on March 5, 2014 the

Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 by as-

serting from the bench in open court that;


-17-


“Justice I. Andre J. was absolutely right”

Without the presentation of real evidence or the TRANSCRIPTS OF PRO-

CEEDING (CV 13-1060), for which I was denied an adjournment to obtain

for the purpose of assisting the court.

[48] The honourable Justice Feldman confirmed on January 30, 2014

the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013 by

asserting from the bench in open court that;

“...you are a vexation litigant! I am staying the matter...”

While matter M43059 was before her to be heard or she was seized by the

same matter, and the Crown had failed to file a RESPONDENT

FACTUM(M43059) or any material to assist the court.

[49] Matter M43059 is concerning a PRIVATE PROSECUTION appeal from

the honourable JUSTICE WATT dismissed of M42322.

[50] Furthermore, the honourable Justice K. Feldman directs the following

in her January 30, 2014 endorsement;

“Mr. Ferron is seeking an extension of time to appeal a decesion of Justice Healey of the New Market Superior Court. However, Mr.


-18-


Ferron is not entitled to bring any proceedings without the authorization of the Regional Senior Justice because of the vexa-tious litigant order of Andre' J. of June 2013.

Mr. Ferron is seeking to appeal that order. Until the appeal is resolved, that order is in effect and must be adhere to. Therefore this matter is adjourned sine die to be brough back on only if and when the vexatious litigant order is set aside or with the authorization or the REGIONAL Senor Justice as per the order of Justice Andre'.”

[51] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on

July 8th, 2013 under the tittle APPENDIX “A”;

“[1] THIS COURT DECLARES that Wayne Ferron has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceed-ings and conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court, and the On-tario Court of Appeal, within the meaning of sections 140(1)(a ) and (b) of the Court Of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. C.43”

[2] THE COURT PROHIBITS Wayne Ferron either directly or indi-rectly, from instituting any proceeding or continuing any proceed-ings previously instituted in any court in Ontario, except until such time as he obtain leave pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act and as provided for in this order.

[3] THIS COURT DIRECTS that any such application for leave will be in writing and sent by fax or registered mail to the Regional Senior Justice of Central West Region (the “RSJ”) ex parte, which shall be accompanied by an affidavit that outlines the merits of the proposed proceeding or step, and a copy of this ORDER. The application and affi-davit shall not exceed 10 pages in length. The application and affidavit shall not exceed 10 pages in length. The the application for leave will be determined by the RSJ or her designee, who will(i) give direction as to the service of the application, which shall include service on the Attorney General, and the procedure for the determination of the application, or(ii) dismiss the application.

[4] THIS COURT ORDERS that any service on the Attorney General that directed by RSJ or her designee referred to in paragraph 3 of this


-19-


Order shall only be given by registered mail addressed and sent as follows:

Attorney General of Ontarioc/o Legal Director of the Crown Law Office-Civil8th Floor, 720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario, M7A 2S9

[5] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that should Wayne Ferron file materials seeking to commence or continue a proceeding or any appeal in any court in Ontario without first filing and an entered Or-der Permitting him to do so; the proceeding shall be immediately stayed upon any person filing a copy of this Order in such court.

[6] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that no further proceedings will be accepted from Wayne Ferron for filing or scheduling by any court in Ontario without the approval of the RSJ or her designate.

[7] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that a copy of this Order be forthwith delivered to the Ontario Court of Appeal and every re-gion of the Superior Court of Justice and Divisional Court.

[8] Cost in the amount of $3, 000 inclusive to go in favour of the ap-plicant.”

[52] The honourable Justice Watt's March 26, 2014 direc-

tions(C55532-STATUS COURT) seems to be inconsistent with the

application of Justice Andre' “VEXATIVE ORDER”, Justice Feld-

man's January 30, 2014 Judgment(M43059), and the CRIMINAL

CODE OF CANADA(Section 482(1), Section 127, Section 22.1); the

same direction is requesting I file Appeal Book(C55532) even though

proper CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPTS(55532) which adhere to the rule Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.

-20-


of evidence has not been completed or affected by court reporter Joy

Webster.

[53] On March 26th, 2014, I filed Justice .I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER”

in court while before the honorable Justice Watt, and I informed

the same court that it was a contravention of the CRIMINAL

CODE OF CANADA(S. 127, S. 22.1) to bring the Applicant to court

to participate in a legal proceeding or force the Applicant to participate

in a legal proceeding in addition to the same Applicant having no legal

rights in ONTARIO.

[54] Furthermore, I informed the honourable Justice Watt that the mat-

ter concerning Justice Andre' “VEXATIVE ORDER” has been sent or is

being sent to the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA since the COURT

OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR has rejected or returned the Application MO-

TION BEFORE A PANEL while acting in the capacity of a Judge.

[55] Furthermore, the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR failed or refuse to

schedule MOTION FOR DIRECTION(C56817) to remedy missing ex-

hibits from file C56817, determine status of incomplete

TRANSCRIPS(C56817), and remedy MS. Krick improper removal of


-21-


court file C56817 from the COURT OF APPEAL-RECORDS without

a court order.

[56] On the 13th of August 2013, Assistant Crown Attorney Deborah

Krick whom has carriage, and control of matter M42322, admitted in

open court to having possession of COURT OF APPEAL file C56817; she

promised to return it to the COURT OF APPEAL RECORDS, and has done so.

She has had sufficient time to review file C56817 and cannot justify asserting

any false statements she aught to know is false in contravention of the PRO-

FESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT.

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

Inspection of files

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

Removal of documents from file

(2) Nothing shall be removed from a Court file or annex except(a) under an order of the Court;(b) by an officer of the Registry acting in the course of his or her duties; or

(c) in accordance with rule 26.1.


http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-106/latest/sor-98-106.html#sec26.1_smooth

-22-


Removal of files

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

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

SOR/2002-417, s. 3.

Definition

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

Removal of exhibits from file

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

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

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

Return of exhibits

(3) On the expiry of the time for appeal or on the disposition of the appeal, the Adminis-trator shall return the exhibits to the respective solicitors or the parties who put the exhibits in evidence.

Return on consent

(4) At any time following judgment, on requisition by the solicitor or party who put an exhibit in evidence or the person who produced it and on the filing of the consent of all parties, the Administrator shall return the exhibit to the person making the requisition.SOR/2002-417, s. 4.

[58] Justice Watt's February 26th, 2014 directions(C55532) seems to

be inconsistent with Justice Andre' “VEXATIVE ORDER”, Justice Feld-

man's January 30, 2014 Judgment(M43059), and the CRIMINAL CODE

OF CANADA(Section 482(1), Section 127, Section 22.1).




-23-


[59] On February 26th, 2014 I informed court while before Justice Watt

in open court that I have been determined to be a “VEXATIVE LITI-

GANT.”

[60] On or about February 25th, 2014, the COURT OF APPEAL-REGIS-

TRAR made an unwritten judgment that the Applicant was a “VEX-

ATIVE LITIGAN”, and there after stop receiving or filing court ma-

terials from the APPLICANT in a normal fashion. If court documents

are accepted, they seem to be set aside in addition there seem to be

no entering of motions or scheduling of motions for directions; yet the

honourable Justice Watt expects me to engage in proceedings and

perfect appeals.

[61] The honourable Justice Hourigan on March 5, 2014

Judgment(M42812) seems to be inconsistent with the application of

Justice Andre' “VEXATIVE ORDER,” since the same order directs that

there is no appeal against the order.

[62] On March 5th , 2014 the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR made

an unwritten judgment, and determined that I was a “VEXATIVE LITI- Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.

-24-


GAN”, and returned my supporting court materials(NOTICE OF

MOTION BEFORE A PANEL, FACTUM, MOTION RECORD) for a mo-

tion before the panel returnable on February 25, 2014 in addition

to failing to file MOTION FOR DIRECTION(C56817); pursuant to

Justice Feldman January 30, 2014 ENDOURSEMENT and Justice .I.

Andre J. “COURT ORDER” determine me to be a “VEXATIVE LITIGAN”.

[63] A copy of Justice Feldman Endorsement, and Justice .I. An-

dre J. “COURT ORDER” was given to the Applicant with Para [2] and

Para[6] highlighted in bright pink highlight for emphasis in addition

to a hand written note stating the following on bright yellow sticky note

paper;

“GIVE TO MR. FERRON.”

[64] The honurabe Justice Feldman January 30, 2014 Judg-

ment(M43059) seems to be inconsistent with case law, and

PARAMOUNTCY; since she indefinitely adjourned matter M43509

which is a Private Prosecution, and is linked to the honourable

Justice Watt.


-25-


[65] The honorable Justice Feldman's January 29, 2014 Judgment

(M42812) seems to be inconsistent with case law and PROCE-

DURAL FAIRNESS.

[66] Why am I being forced to contravene Section 3.1, Section 127(1),

and Section 22.1 of our beloved CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, which re-

spectively states as follows;

Effect of judicial acts3.1 Unless otherwise provided or ordered, anything done by a court, jus-tice or judge is effective from the moment it is done, whether or not it is reduced to writing.

2002, c. 13, s. 2.

Disobeying order of court127. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a law-ful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

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


-26-


Idem(2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an of-fense is a party to every offense that the other commits in conse-quence 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 in-cite.R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 22;R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 7.

[67] Why am I being counseled to violate Parliamentary legislation, when I

want to act lawfully in accordance with the will of Parliament?

[68] Why am I being forced or pushed into breaking the CRIMINAL CODE OF

CANADA?

[68] I REQUIRE A WRITTEN COURT ORDER TO BE FREE FROM THE

CONSTRAINTS OF Justice Feldman's Judgment on January 30, 2014,

and Justice Andre July 8, Judgment, to be able to lawfully participate

in legal proceedings in any court in ONTARIO.

MS. KRICK PREJUDICING PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS:[69] On the 13th day of August 2013 Ms. Krick for the Crown at-

tempted on at least one occasion to defeat the proper course of justice with

the fraudulently procured “VEXATIOUS LITTIGAN” court order; the aforemen-

tioned court order was released on July 8, 2013 by the honourable Justice


-27-


I. Andre J. after being mislead by Ms. Kirkpatrick whom is counsel for

CROWN AGENTS(YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES ET AL).

[70] On the 30th day of January 2014 Ms. Krick for the Crown asserted

on at least one occasion in open court while before the honourable Justice

Feldman who was seized by M43059 and adjourned the same Private Pros-

ecution(M43059) indefinitely; that participation of Wayne Ferron in the

February 26, 2014 status court HEARING(C55532) would not be in vio-

lation of Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013 or

contravention of the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT” order which removed all of Wayne

Ferron's legal rights in Ontario.

[71] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on

July 8th, 2013 under the tittle APPENDIX “A”;

“[1] THIS COURT DECLARES that Wayne Ferron has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceed-ings and conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court, and the On-tario Court of Appeal, within the meaning of sections 140(1)(a ) and (b) of the Court Of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. C.43”

[2] THE COURT PROHIBITS Wayne Ferron either directly or indi-rectly, from instituting any proceeding or continuing any proceed-ings previously instituted in any court in Ontario, except until


-28-


such time as he obtain leave pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act and as provided for in this order.

{...}

[5] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that should Wayne Ferron file materials seeking to commence or continue a proceeding or any appeal in any court in Ontario without first filing and an entered Or-der Permitting him to do so; the proceeding shall be immediately stayed upon any person filing a copy of this Order in such court.

[6] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that no further proceedings will be accepted from Wayne Ferron for filing or scheduling by any court in Ontario without the approval of the RSJ or her designate.

[7] THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that a copy of this Order be forthwith delivered to the Ontario Court of Appeal and every re-gion of the Superior Court of Justice and Divisional Court.

[8] Cost in the amount of $3, 000 inclusive to go in favour of the ap-plicant.”

”

[72] On the 30th day of January 2014 Ms. Krick for the Crown whiled

before Justice Feldman, promised the honourable court that all outstand-

ing TRANSCRIPTS(C55532) for PRIVATE PROSECUTION(C55532) would be

completed for the STATUS COURT HEARING(55532) on February 26,

2014; which was not the case for the aforementioned.

[73] Furthermore, on the 26th day of February 2014 Ms. Krick for the

Crown failed to attend the STATUS COURT HEARING(55532) in addition

to proper certified copies of all outstanding TRANSCRIPTS(C55532) not

being completed in accordance with MS. Krick promised to the COURT OF


-29-


APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 30th day of January 2014 while she was

before Justice Feldman.

[74] On the 26th day of February 2014 the CROWN who was not being

represented by Ms. Krick requested of the STATUS COURT for Wayne

Ferron to file APPEAL BOOK(C55532), even-though the CROWN

should know or ought to have known that APPEAL BOOK(C55532) is

dependent on outstanding TRANSCRIPTS(C55532) that the CROWN

promised the court would be completed, but was not completed.

[75] Even though the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO failed to provide

DUTY COUNSEL after being requested to do so on the 26th day of Febru-

ary 2014, in addition to the COURT OF APPEAL-REGISTRAR promising my

person (Wayne Ferron) access to DUTY COUNSEL to assist the court, the

honourable Justice Watt made a date of March 26, 2014 for the filing of

APPEAL BOOK (C55532) with a openly stated comment of “moving the

matter along.”

INSERCH OF A CERTIFIED/OFFICIAL COPY OF “VEXATIVE ORDER”:


-30-


[76] After being refused a CERTIFIED OR OFFICIAL COPY of the hon-

ourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013, by

the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR and the

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR, after official re questions

were made; I was finally able to obtain a certified copy of the honourable

Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013, at the SUPE-

RIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR on March 13, 2014

at 9:50 a.m. for a fee with Receipt Number 51088562.

[77] The original copy of the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT OR-

DER” released on July 8, 2013, and being fully enforced by all courts in On-

tario, at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGISTRAR

seems to be written with 3 different and distant pens, mainly;

1. an extra fine tipped black ink pen;

2. a dark blue ink pen;

3. and a light blue ink pen.

[78] I note that PARA[8] of “APENDEX A” the honourable Justice I. An-

dre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July 8, 2013 is the only addition or modi-

fication initialized by Justice I. Andre.


-31-


[79] Pursuant to the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST)-REGIS-

TRAR, the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July

8, 2013, “is not a court order,” but an endorsement which still

“stands”. Furthermore, the said endorsement has not went through the

process of becoming a court order, mainly; being typed up by the requesting

party, and the court's official seal being added to the said document.

[80] On March 13, 2014 at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL

WEST)-REGISTRAR, I purchased(Receipt Number 51088562) copies of

the following court documents for CV 13-1060 for $58.00;

1. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on July

8, 2013 in addition to the typed version of the same “COURT ORDER”,

consisting of two pages with the title “APPENDIX A”. The said order is

one page and written with 3 different and distant pens ;

2. the NOTICE OF APPLICATION(CV 13-1060) consisting of 23 pages

and does not have a crimped COURT SEAL, but however is

stamped by the Local Registrar(Samantha Moellar);

3. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on

March 27, 2013 ;


-32-


4. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT re-

leased on July 17, 2013 , consisting of 16 pages.

[81] On March 19, 2014 at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL

WEST)-REGISTRAR, I purchased(Receipt Number 51093069) copies of

the following court documents for CV 13-1060 for $40.00;

1. the NOTICE OF APPLICATION(CV 13-1060) consisting of 23 pages

and does not have a crimped COURT SEAL, but however is

stamped as issued by the Local Registrar(Samantha Moellar);

2. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER” released on

March 27, 2013 for ALTERNATIVE SERVICE;

3. the honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT re-

leased on July 17, 2013 , consisting of 16 pages.

[82] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. ENDORSEMENT(CV

13-1060) released on July 08, 2013 , at line 4 to line 7 despite being al-

ready served 2 NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV 12-716) ;

“...The Applicant served Mr. Ferron with the Application and supporting materials on June 17, 2013 at his address and by email...”


-33-


[83] Pursuant to the honourable Justice I. Andre J. REASONS FOR

JUDGEMENT(CV 13-1060) released on July 17, 2013 , on page 2, at line 7

to line 9 despite being already served 2 NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF

ADDRESS(CV 12-716) ;

“...The respondent did not attend the hearing despite having been served with the Application and related materials...”

[84] NOTICE OF APPLICATION(CV 13-1060) consisting of 23 pages and

has no crimped COURT SEAL, but is stamped as issued by the Local Regis-

trar(Samantha Moellar); filed on March 11, 2013 and address to Wayne

Ferron at the following address on page 2 of the same APPLICATION(CV 13-

1060) despite being already served a NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE OF AD-

DRESS(CV 12-716);

“To WAYNE FERRON322 Derry Rd. #3Mississauga, OntarioL5N 8G5

Email: [email protected]”

[85] FACTUM(CV 13-1060) consist of 30 pages. Filed on March 14,

2013.


-34-


[86] BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(CV 13-1060) consist of at least 300

pages. Filed on March 14, 2013. How are the integrity of material in-

sured in email service maintained, that requires numerous physical

tabs for various volumes consisting of hundreds of pages?

[87] MOTION RECORD(CV 13-1060) is four VOLUMES(3 inch binding

or greater), consisting of more than 1, 500 pages. Filed on March 14,

2013. How are the integrity of material insured in email service that

requires numerous physical tabs for various volumes consisting of

hundreds of pages?

[88] Kinkos charges $00.20 per/min for computer use and $00.19 per/

printed page in addition to the cost of binding materials with tabs.

How are the integrity of material insured in email service that re-

quires numerous physical tabs for various volumes consisting of

hundreds of pages?

[89] On the 16th of January 2014 at 11:14 a.m., I served upon HER

MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney

General of Ontario), the following documents:


-35-


1. a copy of AMENDED AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE

TO APPEAL(M42812);

2. MOTION FOR DIRECTION;

3. a copy of AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL,

BRAMPTON COURT;

4. a copy of STATEMENT OF CLAIM FOR CV-11-4493;

5. a copy of MOTION RECORD/BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME;

6. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CR-12-1912 ET AL ;

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforemention 6 documents with an

Appeal Clerk(whom refused to give name, said it is his right), an

employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Provincial), who

excepts service on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO at the

following location;

Crown Counsel: Deborah KrickThe Attorney General of OntarioCRIMINAL LAW BRANCH6th floor720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

fax: 416 326 4015


-36-


[90] On the 16th of January 2014 at 10:31 a.m., I served upon YORK

REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS

LLP(BLG)), the following documents:



TO APPEAL(M42812);



BRAMPTON COURT;



EXTENSION OF TIME;


by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforemention 6 documents with Kim

Parsons, an employee at BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who

excepts legal service on behalf of BLG and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (a BLG

Lawyer for the said defendant) at the folowing location;

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4 T 416.367.6000 F 416.367.6749 blg.comCounsel for Defendants;


-37-


REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK;YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

Counsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 )T 416.367.6092 F 416.361.2769 [email protected]

[91] On the 16th of January 2014 at 10:30 a.m., I served upon PEEL

REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and THE REGION MUNICIPALITY OF

PEEL(as represented by BLENY MCMURTRY LLP), the following documents:



TO APPEAL(M42812);



BRAMPTON COURT;



EXTENSION OF TIME;


by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforemention 6 documents with

Rafal Szymanski, who is employed by BLENY MCMURTRY LLP, and who Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.

mailto:[email protected]

-38-


also receives legal service the Lawyer for the said defendants, at the

following location;

Counsel: Rafal SzymanskiBLANEY MCMURTRY LLP2 Queen Street, EastSuite 31500Toronto, Ontariotel: 416 593 1221fax: 416 593 5437

COUNSEL FOR:OFFICER PEKESKI (2261)REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEELPEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

[92] The requirements of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 has

not been fulfilled.

[93] On the 15th of January 2014 at about 3:20 p.m., the served upon

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the

Attorney General of Ontario), the following documents:

1. a copy of AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME for APPEAL FOR APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

APPEAL(M42812);

2. a copy of FACTUM FOR EXTENSION OF TIME(M42812);

3. RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) of Deborah Krick

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforemention 3 documents with a

young Caucasian male, an employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY


-39-


GENERAL(Provincial), who excepts service on behalf of the ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF ONTARIO at the following location;

Crown Counsel: Deborah KrickThe Attorney General of OntarioCRIMINAL LAW BRANCH6th floor720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

fax: 416 326 4015

[94] On the 15th of January 2014 at 2:26 p.m., I served upon the YORK

REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF

YORK (as represented by BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), the following

documents:



APPEAL(M42812);


3. RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) of Deborah

Krick

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforemention 3 documents with Kim

Parsons an employee at BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who


-40-


excepts legal service on behalf of BLG and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (a BLG

Lawyer for the said defendant) at the following location;

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4 T 416.367.6000 F 416.367.6749 blg.comCounsel for Defendants;REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK;YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

Counsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 )T 416.367.6092 F 416.361.2769 [email protected]

[95] On the 15th of January 2014 at 1:53 p.m., I served upon PEEL


PEEL(as represented by BLENY MCMURTRY LLP), the following documents:



APPEAL(M42812);


3. RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION RECORD(M42322) of Deborah Krick

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforemention 3 documents with

Melissa Sapinoso who is employed by BLENY MCMURTRY LLP, and who



-41-


also receives legal service on behalf of BLENY MCMURTRY LLP, and Rafal

Szymanski (a Lawyer for the said defendants), at the following location;



[96] On the 21st of December 2012 at 4:25 p.m., I served upon HER

MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney

General of Ontario), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-

00) by leaving a signed copy with Asha Patrick an employee at the

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Provincial), who excepts service on

behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO at the following location;

Counsel: Kevin Hille, LSUC #57439STHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIOCivil Law Branch8th floor720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1Tel: 416 314 2059Fax: 416 326 4181


-42-


[97] On the 21st of December 2012 at 3:55 p.m., I served upon HER

MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA(as represented by the Attorney

General of Canada), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-

00) by leaving a signed copy with Ariyana Botejue(Ministry# 5007) an

employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Federal), who

excepts service on behalf of the Deputy ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

(William F. Pentney) at the following location;

Counsel: Jacqueline Wilson(2-597605)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADACivil Law BranchSuite 3400, Exchange TowerBox 36, First Canadian PlaceToronto, Ontario M5X 1K6fax: 416 973 3004

[98] On the 21st of December 2012 at 3:26 p.m., I served upon YORK

REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BORDEN LADNER

GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-

00) by leaving a signed copy with Ciara Gilbert an employee at BORDEN

LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who excepts legal service on behalf of BLG

and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (a BLG Lawyer for the said defendant) at

the following location;

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4 T 416.367.6000 F 416.367.6749


-43-


blg.comCounsel for Defendants;REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK;YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

Counsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 )T 416.367.6092 F 416.361.2769

[email protected]

[99] The aforementioned document stated as followes on page 6 of the

same served document;

“RE: REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK et. al. Ats Ferronourt File No.: CV-12-0716-00BLG File No.: 016995.000102

TAKE NOTICE: That I, Wayne Ferron(Private Prosecutor) new address i

Wayne FERRONHOMELESS VAGABONDON THE STREETS OF TORONTOTel: 416 420 1353,Email: [email protected] "

[100] Which also stated as follows in the footer of the same served

document;

“Please make your Motions returnable after the month of March 2013 with 8 hours set aside. CONTRARY TO YOUR ASSERTION, I HAVE MORE THAN A THOUSAND PAGES OF EVIDENCE IN ABOUT 4 VOLUMES AND REQUIRE AT LEAST 8 HOURS TO PRESENT MY EVIDENCE. Are you calling me a liar! It is improper for you to




-44-


assert or advise a self represented litigant which you are in adverserial contention with on how much time or hours he needs to argue is plea. Very improper and misdirection to my person, are maybe you are afraid of real factual evidence as oppose to a metaphysical argument. The hearing will prove my point!“

[101] On the 4th of June 2013 at 1:20 p.m., I served upon HER

MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of CANADA(as represented by the

Attorney General of Canada), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-

12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Carla Lyon an employee at the

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Federal), who excepts service on

behalf of the Deputy ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (William F.

Pentney) at the following location;

Counsel: Jacqueline Wilson(2-597605)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADACivil Law BranchSuite 3400, Exchange TowerBox 36, First Canadian PlaceToronto, Ontario M5X 1K6fax: 416 973 3004

[102] On the 11th of June 2013 at 4:50 p.m., I served upon HER

MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the

Attorney General of Ontario), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-

12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with Wahab Khan an employee at

the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Provincial), who excepts service

on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO at the following location;


-45-


Counsel: Kevin Hille, LSUC #57439STHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIOCivil Law Branch8th floor720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1Tel: 416 314 2059Fax: 416 326 4181

[103] On the 11th of June 2013 at 1:54 p.m., I served upon YORK

REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES(as represented by BORDEN LADNER

GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-

00) by leaving a signed copy with Brenda Jacome a Legal Receptionist at

BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who excepts legal service on

behalf of BLG and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (a BLG Lawyer for the said

defendant) at the folowing location;

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 3Y4 T 416.367.6000 F 416.367.6749 blg.comCounsel for Defendants;REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK;YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

Counsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 )T 416.367.6092 F 416.361.2769

[email protected] Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.


-46-


[104] On the 11th of June 2013 at 5:57 p.m., I served upon PEEL


PEEL(as represented by BLENY MCMURTRY LLP), a NOTICE OF

CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with the

Legal Receptionist who refuse to disclose her name because she could not

contact the defendant's lawyer Rafal Szymanski, at BLENY MCMURTRY

LLP, who excepts legal service on behalf of BLENY MCMURTRY LLP and

Rafal Szymanski (a Lawyer for the said defendants), at the following

location;



[105] The aforementioned document states as follows on page 7 of the

same served document;

“TAKE NOTICE: Please serve me at the address below whiletaking the given constraints into consideration; if thedocuments in question are to reach their proper destinationor intended recipient.


-47-


Wayne FERRON1-18 Earlscourt Ave. Toronto,ON, Postal Code M6E 4A6Tel: 416 420 1353,Email: [email protected]

TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THESTREETS OF TORONTO WHILE LIVING AS AVAGABOND, EVEN THOUGH I STILL SLEEP ON THEFLOOR AND WALK THE CITY FOR FOOD!! SO, PLEASESEND ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTEREDMAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NOASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVEADRESS BY REGULAR MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MYPERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTSBEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOTHOME IN THE DAY TIME; I MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THEABOVE ADDRESS.“

[106] The aforesaid document, also stated as follows on many pages in the

footer of the same served document;

“PLEASE DO NOT SERVE ME BY EMAIL, I DO NOT HAVE AN ISP ACCOUNT IN ADDITION TO BEING RELIANT ON THE LIBRARY FOR INTERNET ACCESS. WE HAVE NO EMAIL SERVICE AGREEMENT, AND YOU HAVE NOT SENT ME MONIES TO COVER THE ADDITION COST FOR PROCESSING ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS. MY RELIANCE ON THE FOODBANK CANNOT PAY FOR THIS ADDITIONAL COST.“

[107] In addition the afore said, a letter was sent to the Chief of Police, to

affect the Private Prosecutor's COLOUR OF RIGHT. It articulated as follows;

“Chief of Police Mike MetcalfPEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES7750 Hurontario Street, Brampton,



-48-


ON, L6V 3W6(905) 453-3311

RE: I respectfully request byway of COLOUR OF RIGHT, theprompt return of all my belongings stolen or confiscated orwhatever the case my be, by your subordinate Officer Peke-ski(2261) whom disclosed to my person the false identity ofOfficer Perkins(2261) in addition to the PEEL REGIONAL POLICEdisclosing his identity as Officer Perkins(2261).”

[108] On the 11th of June 2013 at 3:08 p.m., I served upon WILLIAM

OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM and MRS HAMILTON, a NOTICE OF CHANGE

OF ADDRESS(CV-12-0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with the Sandra

Persoud a Legal Receptionist at HEALTHCARE INSURANCE RECIPROCAL

OF CANADA, who excepts legal service on behalf of HEALTHCARE

INSURANCE RECIPROCAL OF CANADA and Gordon Slemko (LSUC

37320K), at the following location;

Counsel: Gordon Slemko (LSUC 37320K)HEALTHCARE INSURANCE RECIPROCAL OF CANADA4711 Yonge Street, Suite 1600Toronto, Ontario, M2N 6K8tel: 416 730 3088fax: 416 7332058

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDENTS:WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEMMRS HAMILTON

[109] On the 11th of June 2013 at 3:08 p.m., I served upon SALVATION

ARMY and HARRY BOOM, a NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS(CV-12-

0716-00) by leaving a signed copy with the Rob Jokinen who goes by the


-49-


title of COURIER OPERATIONS TEAM LEADER at DENTONS CANADA

LLP(former name is FRASER MILNER CASGRAIN LLP(FCP)), who

excepts legal service on behalf of DENTONS CANADA LLP and Marina

E. Sampson (LSUC 37320K), at the following location;

Counsel: Marina E. Sampson (LSUC 37320K)DENTONS CANADA LLP

77 King Street West, Suite 400TORONTO DOMINION CENTREToronto, Ontario, M5K 0A1tel: 416 863 4511fax: 416 863 4592

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDENTS:SALVATION ARMY;MR HARRY BOOM

[110] On the 9th of July 2013 at 12:07 p.m., I served upon DR. JEFFRY

D. HANDLER, the following documents:

1. a copy of NOTICE OF ACTION(CV-12-0716-00);

2. STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV-12-0716-00);

3. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS( CV-12-0716-00) for

homelessness;

4. a copy of NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS( CV-12-0716-00);


-50-


by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforemention 4 documents with Gina

Lopez who is employed by WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM as a PUBLIC

RELATION employee, in addition to receiving egal service on behalf of

WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, while acting

in the capacity of her employeer's public relation's personael at the following

location;

CARILLION SERVICESHOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICESFLOOR: SLLOFFICE: SLL 242

DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLERBrampton Civic Hospital2100 Bovaird DriveBrampton, OntarioL6R 3J7

(905) 494-2120, ext 58333

[111] Madame Gina Lopez, came from her PUBLIC RELATION (PR) office

located at the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC

HOSPITAL, N145 to receive legal service because of the complication of

finding her office in BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, pursuant to a conversation

on the phone with her from CARILLION SERVICES (HOSPITAL SUPPORT

SERVICES) located in OFFICE: SLL 242.

[112] I had served DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER in conjunction with

WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM before in the prescribed time, but I was


-51-


informed at a later date in conjunction with the service of a statement of

defense that DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER is not an employee, and must be

serve separately.

[113] The problem is, where I was held prisoner (N1) is a secured location

with double doors which are always kept lock. In addition, one cannot

reasonable interrupt the treatment of patients in a HOSPITIAL to serve legal

documents. So, personal service is impossible unless it is excepted by the

front staff designated for such material; WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM

acts in the capacity of protector/gatekeeper to affect personal service for

the purpose of accessing the same doctor; codefendant WILLIAM OSLER

HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL did not offer to assist or refuse to

help in resolving this legal issue nor did they offer an alternate address and person

to receive the said legal service. The Judge will have to decide, I did my best to

perform personal legal service. There has been no response from these two attempt

at personal service.

[114] On the 9th of July 2013 at 12:07 p.m., I served upon DR. DAVID

KOCZERGINSKI(257691), the following documents: Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.

-52-





homelessness;


by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 4 documents with

Gina Lopez who is employed by WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM as a

PUBLIC RELATION employee, in addition to receiving legal service on behalf

of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, while

acting in the capacity of her employer’s public relation's personal at the

following location;


DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI(257691)Brampton Civic Hospital2100 Bovaird DriveBrampton, OntarioL6R 3J7

(905) 494-2120, ext 58333

[115] Madame Gina Lopez, came from her PUBLIC RELATION (PR) office

located at B WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL

N145 to receive legal service because of the complication of finding her

office in BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL pursuant to a conversation on the phone


-53-


with her from CARILLION SERVICES (HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICES) located

in OFFICE: SLL 242.

[116] I had served DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI(257691)

in conjunction with WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM before in the

prescribed time, but I was informed at a later date in conjunction with the

service of a statement of defense that DR. DAVID KOCZERGINSKI

(257691) is not an employee, and must be serve separately.

[117] The problem is, where I was held prisoner (N1) is a secured

location with double doors which are always kept lock. In addition, one

cannot reasonable interrupt the treatment of patients in a HOSPITIAL to

serve legal documents. So, personal service is impossible unless it is

excepted by the front staff designated for such material; WILLIAM OSLER

HEALTH SYSTEM acts in the capacity of protector/gatekeeper to affect

personal service for the purpose of accessing the same doctor; codefendant

WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL did not offer to

assist or refuse to help in resolving this legal issue nor did they offer an alternate

address and person to receive the said legal service . The Judge will have to


-54-


decide, I did my best to perform personal legal service. There has been no response

from these two attempt at personal service.

[118] On the 9th of July 2013 at 12:07 p.m., I served upon DR. R.

HOOD, DR. PARTHA ACHARYYA, DR. CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH,

the following documents:




homelessness;


by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforementioned 4 documents with

Gina Lopez who is employed by WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM as a

PUBLIC RELATION employee, in addition to receiving legal service on behalf

of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, while

acting in the capacity of her employer’s public relation's personal at the

following location;


DR. R. HOOD, DR. PARTHA ACHARYYA, DR. CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH,

Brampton Civic Hospital


-55-


2100 Bovaird DriveBrampton, OntarioL6R 3J7

(905) 494-2120, ext 58333

Madame Gina Lopez, came from her PUBLIC RELATION (PR) office located

at B WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL N145 to

receive legal service because of the complication of finding her office in

BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL pursuant to a conversation on the phone with

her from CARILLION SERVICES (HOSPITAL SUPPORT SERVICES) located in

OFFICE: SLL 242. I had served all the Doctors in conjunction with

WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM before in the prescribed time, but I was

informed at a later date in conjunction with the service of a statement of

defense that the Doctors are not employees, and must be serve separately.

The problem is, where I was held prisoner (N1) is a secured location with

double doors which are always kept lock. In addition, one cannot reasonable

interrupt the treatment of patients in a HOSPITIAL to serve legal documents.

So, personal service is impossible unless it is excepted by the front staff

designated for such material; WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM acts in the

capacity of protector/gatekeeper to affect personal service for the purpose

of accessing the same doctor; codefendant WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH


-56-


CENTRE / BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL did not offer to assist or refuse to help in

resolving this legal issue nor did they offer an alternate address and person to

receive the said legal service. The Judge will have to decide, I did my best to perform

personal legal service. There has been no response from these two attempt at

personal service.

JUSTICE WATT HISTORY WITH APPLICANT AND PENDING M38706/MOTION M38706 IS M.I.A.:[119] Was I denied natural justice for NOTICE OF MOTION for

DISCLOSURE(C51190/M38706), returnable on the 30th of April, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.

before a single Judge?

[120] On April 7, 2011 I filed and served the following documents; APPELLANT’S

FACTUM, APPLICANT’S FACTUM FOR APPLICATION TO ADMIT FRESH EVIDENCE,

NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO ADMIT FRESH EVIDENCE, and NOTICE OF RETURN

TO MOTION M38706.

[121] While I was filing NOTICE OF RETURN TO MOTION M38706 at the COURT OF

APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen street West; the Clerk of the

ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL Registrar, informed me in clear and concise language

on more than one occasion, that M38706 was “closed”. Moreover, Motion M38706

has been closed since August 27, 2010! The same Clerk informed Madam Deputy

CRegistrar immediately after confirming to my person in no uncertain terms in the

relevant computer data base, that Justice Watt had close M38706 on August 27,


-57-


2010. I took notes on a blank peace of paper and started to write a request for

investigation into the events surrounding M38706. My initial hand written request for

an investigation was refused by madam registrar.

[122] Furthermore, I learned that the Honourable Justice Watt completed MOTION

FOR DISCLOSURE M38706, the said motion which was indefinitely adjourned by the

Honourable Justice Laskin to “a date to be set by the registrar”.

“...this motion is adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar” is given as the

following interpretation pursuant to the registrar;

[123] If it is the case that the afore said statement means that, the motion in question

will be reconvene before a single Judge. But, this forces the question, what does “ ...a

date to be fixed by the Registrar” means ?

[124] If it is the case that the aforesaid statement means that, the motion in question

will be reconvene before a panel of Judge. But, this begs the question, why was this

internal legal jargon not explained to my person? The Registrar gave both meaning or

interpretation to my person for Justice Laskin April 14, 2010 Ruling on Motion

M38706. The process in bringing contested issues before a panel is different than

before a single judge. Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.

-58-


[125] I and the Registrar agreed after a long discussion that the RETURN TO MOTION

M38706 would be before a different panel than the leave to appeal panel and before

the leave to appeal date, with a new Motion number.

[126] A short period later on the same day, I was called back to the registrar(Madam

Deputy Registrar’s Office), while I was downstairs in at the Court Records. Upon

returning back to her Office at her beckoning, she iformed me that I was correct in filing

the RETURN TO MOTION M38706 to be heard before a single Judge. Furthermore,

RETURN TO MOTION M38706 would be filed under M38706 on a returnable date of

April 29th.

[127] Furthermore, in accordance with Madam Deputy Registrar's instructions, I was to

file the following documents(please see EXHIBIT W2);

1. “M387062. 1 Copy of motion for direction for further disclosure and transcripts.3. 1 Copy of Factum filed for Motion for direction for disclosure and

transcripts.4. 1 Copy Supplementary Motion Record.”(Asper Madam Deputy Registrar)

At first instant I was going to file these documents asper instructed, but upon further

examination I was very concerned if I would be committing fraud or introducing

errors into my appeal(C51190). Or even worse, engaging in illegal actions. So I

changed my mind, officially notify Madam Deputy Registrar to adjourn or dissolve

the hearing and place the matter concerning M38706 before a Court of competent


-59-


jurisdiction(panel of judges), because the case for a constitutional question had

been made out(please see EXHIBIT Y5).

[128] Without much analysis of the matter before me, I agreed with the registrar of

course, but after having a little quiet time to analyze the new information and the lack

thereof surrounding the issue, I decided to dissolve the hearing for RETURN TO

MOTION M38706 would be filed under M38706 on a returnable date of April 29th, 2011

and bring a motion for direction on the issue of Motion M38706 which has been

outstanding since May 14, 2010 to be argued within the context of the Charter

before a court of competent jurisdiction.

[129] A constitutional case has been made out for natural justice and denial of the

right to give full answer (disclosure rights), so the onus is now on the Crown to prove

otherwise or justify the Charter violations byway of Section 1.

[130] The registrar is thanked for their efforts to remedy an injustice, but Charter issues

cannot and must not be resolved in offices or back rooms. They must be placed before

an impartial tribunal of competent Jurisdiction. The following will make the reasons why

self evident.

“R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190) Laskin J.A. Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.

-60-


May 14, 2010

Mr. Ferron's requests to file a long factum and to obtain the Crown's consent to a fresh evidence application are premature. The factum Mr. Ferron proposes to file is not before me. Moreover, he has not yet prepared and filed a fresh evidence application. Mr. Ferron also seeks transcripts of the set date appearances and appearance before the summary conviction appeal court leading up the hearing of the appeal.

Ms. Stuart, counsel for the Crown, has agreed to investigate whether these additional transcripts are necessary. However, it should be pointed out that what is pending before this court is a motion for leave to appeal from the decision of the summary conviction appeal court.

Further, Mr. Ferron seeks additional disclosure of items that he does not have. Again, Ms. Stuart has agreed to look into these matters.

Once Ms. Stuart has made these investigations, she will communicate to Mr. Ferron

the Crown's position in writing. Mr. Ferron must understand that in the light of what he has asked for these investigations will take some time.

Pending these investigations, and report to Mr. Ferron, this motion is adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar.”

(Laskin J.A., May 14, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190))

[131] The first paragraph of the honourable Justice Laskin’s order states;

“ factum Mr. Ferron proposes to file is not before me.”

This may be the case but it is definitely in my court file(C51190) at the COURT OF

APPLE FOR ONTARIO. The Crown (Ms. Stuart) and I had agreed outside of court for

the Crown to file a sample to a single Judge to be reviewed for acceptance and in return

I would adjourn the matter from an April returnable date to a different date. I checked

the court file in the record room and the Factum is their.


-61-


[132] Justice Laskin’s order also states that;

“he has not yet prepared and filed a fresh evidence application...”.

While filing a Fresh Evidence Application, I was informed by the Clerk of the Registrar

that my fresh evidence need to be sealed and would not be opened until the Appeal

date. I fail to see how a fresh evidence Application would be helpful or the said

Application is necessary for my Motion M38706, which was for outstanding further

disclosure from the lower Courts. Logical you need the evidence first (disclosure),

before you can file the fresh evidence or else one would be engaged in a paradox to

show merits for an Appeal.

[133] The last paragraph of Justice Laskin’s order gives two condition;

“Pending these investigations, and report to Mr. Ferron, this motion is adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar.”

i) Pending these investigations: The said investigations was completed and

disclosed to my person on October 15, 2010 by Ms. Stuart. So why was Motion

M38706 “closed” on August 27, 2010? The given reason is that Justice Watt closed

both the Motion for further disclosure and the Application for Mandamus with

Certiorari concurrently M38706. I was not aware of this fact or informed of this fact

until April 7, 2011. This is a denial of natural justice! It should be noted that the young

Clerk who took receipt of the filing of APPLICATION for MANDAMUS with CERTIORARI


-62-


M38706, inquired with someone in higher authority and more knowledge who should

have known or ought to have known that the said Application exceeded jurisdiction

should have went before a panel or a SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE.

[134] Furthermore, the motion for further disclosure was closed before its conditions

for re-adjournment was fulfilled, thereby violating or contracting Justice Laskin’s court

order. But, stranger still, Justice Watt’s Order is void of any references or inference to

outstanding disclosure or further disclosure which was the contested issue for M38706.

“R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190) David Watt J.A.

August 27, 2010

This application seeks relief that this court is not authorized to grant. It is dismissed. This application for leave to appeal should be transferred to the

inmate/in person list to ensure ongoing supervision. The respondent will provide copies of transcripts already prepared to the applicant.”

(David Watt J.A., August 27, 2010, Typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))

[135] All this was done, at the hearing before the Honourable Justice Watt, while the

Crown(Ms. Stuart) was given false information to the court or misleading the court of

appeal from the back right-side of the room instead of before the bench; she was also in

violation of her duties owed to the my person and the public by her high office. Yet her

request to the Honourable Justice Watt against my person was granted in violation of

my rights while contravening or contradicting or over ruling the Honourable Justice

Gillese M38387 Court Order. Which can only be overturned by a panel of Judges.

“R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190)


-63-


Gillese J.A. {...}January 22, 2010 The Crown has suggested that Mr. Ferron may wish to have this matter dealt with sim-

ilarly to an inmate appeal as this would give him access to duty counsel, among other things. If Mr. Ferron chooses to follow this route, he is to advise the Crown and together with the Crown, arrange to have this matter transferred to a in-person appeal court to be spoken to.

(Gillese J.A., January 22, 2010, Type

The aforesaid is misleading and not forthcoming in additions to an element of false

pretense in Ms. Joanne Stuart's inference of my agreement in discussions with her on

the status of C51190 being transferred to inmate Appeal Court in accordance with the

Honourable Justice Gillese M38387 Court Order.

[136] Why was I not informed of the status of M38706 only after I accidentally found out

that M38706 was closed; given that I have been trying to return to M38706 or

reconvene this matter repetitively for more than one year?

[137] I have brought up the said matter many time orally to the Registrar and I have

brought this matter up in open court to no avail(please see EXHIBIT V, U, T2, W1, W2,

Y1, Y2, Y3, Y5, Y6, and Y7).

[138] For example, on February 7, 2011 in open inmate Appeal Court, I informed

Justice MacPherson while he was unilaterally perfecting the Appeal(C51190) without a Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.

-64-


fair and just determination on a balance of probability for contended issues on

Application Transcripts, outstanding disclosure, and discrepancies with the Appeal

Book(C51190). That their was still a motion outstanding; Motion M38706 is open,

meaning that it has been open since May 14, 2010, and is still open and is not closed;

inferring that the further disclosure contested issues has not been resolved or

determined on a balance of probabilities in a fair hearing. He said that; “all that was

needed was his Court Order.” As upsetting as this is, it is even more upsetting and

stranger still that the Honourable Justice MacPherson was not aware and did not inquire

about Motion M38706 being open or closed? Or informed the court that the Motion was

closed on August 27, 2010 by Justice Watt or endorse Motion M38706

documentation that the same motion was closed?

[139] Typed version of handwritten endorsement “R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)MacPherson J.A. .J.A.

7 February 2011

The appeal book prepared by the Crown is fine.

The appeal is adjourned to April 11, 2011 for adjournment of the appellant’ application for leave to appeal.

Mr. Ferron intends to argue the leave application without the assistance of duty counsel.”

(MacPherson J.A., February 7, 2011, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))

[140] If M38706 was closed August 27, 2010, why was the MOTION FOR DIRECTION


-65-


for FURTHER DISCLOSURE AND TRANSCRIPTS(M38706) returnable on the 22nd

December 2010, before the Honourable Justice Cronk ; how was the COURT OF

APPEAL REGISTRAR able to use motion number M38706 in administration?

[141] If you notice the motion before the Honourable Justice Cronk was about

disclosure and denial of natural justice with respect to the perfection of the Appeal.

Motion M38706 was about outstanding disclosure and further disclosure owed to me

from the lower courts. So why was I not informed or advised that my contended issues

on disclosure was already dealt with and the matter was determined against my person

on a balance of probabilities? In short, why was I not advised 22nd December 2010 that

M38706 was closed, if it was indeed closed on August 27, 2011?

[142]

“Typed version of handwritten endorsement R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190) Cronk J.A.

December 22, 2010

Mr. Ferron appears today asking that his appeal be expedited, that a hearing be held to determine outstanding disclosure and what transcripts should be produced by Crown, and appointing a ‘Case Management Officer’.

By order of MacPherson J. A. of this court dated December 13, 2010, the Crown has been ordered to prepare the Appeal Book, including relevant transcripts,


-66-


by January 15, 2011. He further ordered that this matter be adjourned to Feb. 7, 2011 to be spoken to.

Mr. Ferron’s motion today is premature. the Crown must be given an opportunity to do what it has been ordered to do. If any further directions regarding management of the appeal are required, or any other order, they may be addressed on February 7, 2011.

This motion is adjourned to February 7, 2011.”(Cronk J.A., December 22, 2010, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190),)

[143] On March 23rd, 2011 their were some issues placed before a single Justice; one

of which was the reconvening of Motion M38706. Neither the honourable presiding

Justice nor the Crown informed my person, whom is the only non legal professional of

the completion or closing of Motion M38706 on August 27, 2010 by Justice Watt

COURT OF APPEAL Registrar, or the completion or closing of Motion M38706 on

February 7, 2011 as asserted by the Honourable Rosenberg? Moreover, a single

Justice(MaCPherson) cannot overrule or dispose of another Judge’s Court Order,

this is the Jurisdictional Authority of a panel of Judges; the Justice MacPherson

would be exceeding his jurisdiction.

[144] On March 23, 2011 Return to Motion M38706, motion M39763, and motion

M39828 was before the Chief Justice(Winkler C.J. O), of the COURT OF APPEL, yet

no legal professional at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, fail to inform me of

the status of Motion M38706; if the same motion was indeed closed on February 7,

2011 by Justice MacPherson as asserted by Justice Rosenberg; Or if Motion M38706

was indeed closed on August 27, 2010 by Justice Watt as asserted by COURT OF


-67-


APPEAL Registrar and confirmed by the Deputy Registrar, given that it is the Registrar’s

business to know the aforementioned and to deal with Court administration problems.

[145] If Motion M38706 was closed on August 27, 2010 or February 7, 2011 then

logic dictates or it is self-evident that Motion M38706 would be closed at any time after

February 7, 2011{an element of a subset is also an element of the set}. But, this is not

the case and infers a fallacy in the given evidence of the logical flow of events; in addi-

tion to faulty premise relied on to arrive at the stated conclusion, points to a fallacy in

the utilized argument. Moreover, it points to an “Elephant in the Courtroom” which

needs to be dealt with in the spirit of truthfulness and integrity. For the simple reason

that it is in the interest of justice to seek a fair and equitable end of justice.

[146] The Registrar which should have known or ought to have known because it is its

business to know the status of Motion M38706. Why was I allowed to file a Return to

MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE (M38706) before Chief Justice Winkler with a returnable

date of March 23, 2011? How is this logically possible, given that M38706 was dis-

posed of on February 7, 2011 pursuant to the Honourable Justice Rosenberg’s

Endorsement. With all due respect to the honoured COURT OF APPEAL, the aforemen-

tioned just does not make logical sense and any falsehoods should be expunged.

“Typed version of handwritten endorsement R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M39763, M39828 (C51190) Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.

-68-


Winkler C.J. O

March 23, 2011

Adjourned on consentto June 13, 2011.

Motion to file longer Factum denied.”(Winkler C.J. O, March 23, 2011, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))

[147] Furthermore, the Honourable Justice Winkler, the Chief Justice of the COURT OF

APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, should have known or ought to have known the status of Mo-

tion M38706; furthermore, that he was conducting a hearing for a Return to Motion

M38706(C51190), which was closed or aught to have been closed on February 7,

2011 by Justice MaCPherson. How is this logically possible when the status of the Mo-

tion M38706 is first checked before any serve/filed documentation can be entered into a

court data base under M38706 or received by the COURT OF APPEAL Registrar?

[148] There is a fallacy in the premise or given progression of events which does not al-

low one to arrive at The Honourable Justice Rosenberg’s conclusion concerning

M38706 from the given assumptions. I reasonable believe on reasonable probable

grounds, and do believe that The Honourable Justice Rosenberg erred in fact and

law on the aforesaid contested issue of M38706.

[149] A single Presiding Justice would be exceeding is authority or acting outside

his jurisdiction byway of over ruling another Justice Orders Unilaterally; the same

matter should be placed before a Panel of Judges in a Court of competent juris-


-69-


diction. Hence, the Honourable Justice MacPherson is not a panel of Judges nor

is his court a court of competent Jurisdiction to “dispose of M38706” as the Hon-

ourable Justice Rosenberg puts it. In short, we have before the COURT OF AP-

PEAL FOR ONTARIO, a jurisdictional error at the minimum, effected by Justice

MaCPherson. If it is the case that Justice Rosenberg assumption or premise is in-

deed correct.

[150] The Motion number on a court document for a motion before Chief Justice

Winkler on March 23, 2011, has been changed from M38706 to M39763 without a

notification initial to indicate the same change or advise of the change. It should be

noted that hand writing of the clerk who filed the said motion seems to be different than

the hand writing of the person who change the motion number.

[151] If Motion M38706 was closed on August 27, 2010 or February 7, 2011;

the Honorable Justice Rosenberg, whom was the presiding Judge over M400082

SIC(M40082 error in motion number), and whom I informed in open court about

the status of M38706, replied by stating that I could bring back the Motion M38706

but it had to be before him a single judge. Even though a single Judge does not have

jurisdiction to hear M38706; I am alleging natural justice violation and section 7

violation of the Charter. Furthermore, he said that I must file motions before him, but this


-70-


was not explicitly laid out in his order, since it left a wide area of interpretation in his

June 8, 2011 court order.

[152] It is within this uncertain legal atmosphere which I am expected to place my trust

in Duty Counsel. Trust my life to Duty Counsel; trust my children’s lives to Duty Council.

In light of all the aforementioned in addition to the irregularities and questionable things,

can I reasonable place my trust, my life, my children life and my confidence in Duty

Counsel which has the courts apparent policy as its highest priority instead of the

fiduciary relationship with their Clients. In short, the duty counsel is a Sub Crown!

[153] PERSONAL FEELINGS ON CROWNS ALLEGE ABUSE OF PROCESS:Their is no independence, but only apparent independence. A lawyer’s duty is first to the

Court then to his Client! If their is a conflict, the Courts priority or silent policy takes

presidents. The law is a two edge sword, the Crown’s bold abuse of the process my win

cases and put trophy pieces in jail, but they lose the battle for the confidence and trust

of the public. In the long run, what has the Crown won when all that it is doing is

Claiming to be in the interest or good of the public. In this matter, the Crown has been

straddling the fence on the wrong side of the law, destroying the connective tissue of

our beloved society.

[154] I requested on many occasion for a Case Management Officer to over see the

Case(C51190) and to insure fairness and equity in the appeal process. Moreover, I was

relentless in my said request from the start of the Appeal process at the Court of Appeal.


-71-


The Crown was in opposition to my position for a Case Management Officer. The

registrar performing in the capacity as a mediator between the Crown and the accused,

could be breeding more bias in the process. I have filed and served all my disclosure

arguments on the Crown. My filed documents on disclosure to go before the panel was

rejected by the Court. All my recently filed documents plus the ones to come has been

changed to reflect what has transpired up until March 23, 2011.

[155] 6. APPEAL MANAGEMENT

1.In exceptional cases it is appropriate that a judge be assigned to manage the con-duct of an appeal. The request for the assignment of such an appeal management judge is to be made to the court through the office of the Senior Legal Officer. The request should contain enough information to satisfy the court that such an appointment is appropriate. The decision to appoint an Appeal Management Judge will be made by the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of the Court. Counsel will be ad-vised of the outcome of the decision.

{...}

This Practice Direction comes into force on January 1, 2004.

Dated at Toronto this 7th day of October, 2003.(R. Roy McMurtry, Chief Justice of Ontario, Updated November 2008; http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/coa/en/notices/pd/civil2003.htm#2)

[156] Like I said, I do not know if I will be breaking any rules or law or even

challenging Justice MacPherson’s order in an improper way, while producing new

documents; I could most likely be introducing errors and falsehoods into my documents

for which I would be liable for or render false signed statements in my documents,


-72-


already served and filed; by turning back the clock to remedy many wrongs in a

questionable way with illusive motives.

[157] For example, Mr. Westgate tried to do this by slipping an outstanding

transcript held prisoner by the Crown’s office outside of open court under false

pretense at the S.C.J.. Likewise, Mr Asma slipped me a copy of the Martin Report

after reading the Applicant’s relevant arguments for its disclosing under the radar, even

though the matter was being contested at the Information and Privacy Commission.

[158] The best thing to do is upgrade MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE M38706 to a

constitutional Application, to be heard before a court of competent

jurisdiction(panel of judges). Instead of risking further prejudicing the matter before

the COURT OF APPEAL, against my person; given the total rejection of my prudent

extended documents on outstanding disclosure, further disclosure, and fresh

evidence. The said documents cost me most of his income tax refund. Now I am not all

to gather sure why my documents for outstanding disclosure and further disclosure

before the panel was rejected?

[159] Given that MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE M38706 was closed or completed by

the honourable Justice Watt on August 27, 2010 absent of a fair hearing on a

balance of probability asper the Registrar’s confirmation; or MOTION FOR

DISCLOSURE M38706 was closed or “disposed of” by the honourable Justice


-73-


MacPherson on February 7, 2011 absent of a fair hearing on a balance of probability

in accordance with Justice Rosenberg’s Ruling on Motion 40323 and it’s Ruling

endorsement, was endorsed incorrectly on Motion M40301 for the events

surrounding the missing Motion M38706. The unfortunate error of the endorsement of

M40301 instead of M40323 has caused the determination of the August 16, HEARING

on a formal investigation for M3806 to lose context and significance.

[160] In the face of my failure on official reconvening of Motion M38706, even

though I diligently pursued a return to MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE M38706; after the

honourable Justice Laskin adjourned Motion M38706 indefinitely. I reasonable believe

and do believe that their has been a breach of natural justice, and a failure to duly

administer the application of my Rights in accordance with the Charter.

[161] I was not asking for any thing extra or extraordinary but only to be allowed to

conduct my matter on a level legal playing field of fairness and equity with the blessings

of the consciousness of the Court. Furthermore, I was looking for resolution to

contended issues to be determined in the spirit of the ATTORNEY’S GENERALS

DIRECTIVE, the MARTIN REPORT, the FEDERAL PROSECUTION DESKBOOK, the

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, the BILL OF RIGHTS, the CHARTER, the fair trial rights of the


-74-


INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, and the COURT

OF APPEAL DIRECTIVES.

[162] But, the part played by the Crown in the administration of the matter before the

court has shown a disregard for procedural efficiencies, public funds, the public interest,

the judicial system’s scarce resources, the Justices heavy work load and hectic

schedule, and my Rights and Freedom. The questionable dealings with MOTION FOR

DISCLOSURE(M38706) cannot be remedy by further prejudicing the process against

my person and inducing other errors byway of bypassing or circumventing

determinations which should be executed on a balance of probability; matters such as

M38706 should be resolved in a fair hearing for the purpose of adjudicating contentions

in outstanding disclosure issues and Transcripts issues. Contended issues need to be

weighed in a fair legal scale for a just determination on a balance of probabilities.

Pursuant to Ridge v Baldwin, the Charter, and the BILL OF RIGHTS; I reasonable

believe and do believe that I have been denied natural justice at the COURT OF

APPEAL FOR ONTARIO for my matter (C51190).

[163] On the 12th of April 2011, I served on the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO,

Registrar a REQUISITION to DEPUTY REGISTRAR TO ADJOURN OR CHANGE RE-

TURN TO MOTION M38706 {...} TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE PANEL(07-02500/07-

02559), for the following reasons;

“...given that the Premise is, M38706 was “closed” on August 27, 2010 by Justice Watt and on April 7, 2011 the Clerk of the Registrar informed me that M38706 was closed while trying to file RETURN TO MOTION M38706. This implies a fallacy in logic or the logical construct to arrive at the stated conclusion.


-75-


This does not explain why in almost a year their has been many MOTIONS filed under M38706 and no one informed me that M38706 was “closed”? This does not explain why no Justice, no Crown counsel, and no Court Clerk informed me that M38706 was closed, with the exception of April 7, 2011? In short, the closing date of M38706 is in question;

3) the Applicant was informed of the status of M38706 only after the Applicant accidently found out that M38706 was “closed”, given that he has been trying to reconvene M38706 for almost a year

{...}8) the prudent or judicial action which should be taken is, to dissolve the hearing date

for RETURN TO MOTION M38706 on a returnable date of April 29th, 2011 and place Motion M38706 which has been outstanding since May 14, 2010 to be ar-gued within the context of the Charter before a court of competent jurisdiction. A constitutional case has been made out for natural justice and denial of the right to give full answer (disclosure rights), so the onus switches to the Crown to prove otherwise or justify the Charter violations byway of Section 1. of the Charter. In short, Charter issues cannot and must not be remedied in offices and back-rooms oppose to a proper platform

{...}The applicant’s filed document on outstanding further disclosure, to go before the

panel was rejected by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. All the recently filed docu-ments plus the ones to come has been changed to reflect what has transpired up until March 23, 2011. In short, the Applicant has modified his arguments to show merit why the Appeal should not be dismissed to fit the narrow unilat-eral constraints Justice MacPherson’s Court Order established (Feb 7, 2011 an Dec 13, 2010), or enforces. Furthermore, the Applicant does not know if he will be breaking any rules or law while producing new documents; he could most likely be introducing errors and falsehoods into is documents for which he would be liable for or render false signed statements in documents, already served and filed; by turning back the clock to remedy many wrongs in a questionable way with illusive motives. For example, Mr. Westgate tried to do this by slipping an outstanding transcript held prisoner by the Crown’s office outside of open court under false pretense. Mr Asma slipped me a copy of the Martin Report after be-ing served the Applicant’s relevant arguments for its disclosing under the radar, even though the matter was being contested at the IPC. The best and safest thing to do is upgrade Motion M38706 to a constitutional Application, to be heard before a court of competent jurisdiction. Instead of further prejudicing the matter before the Court against the Applicant. Given, the rejection of the Applicant’s prudent extended documents containing very detailed arguments on out-standing disclosure, further disclosure, transcripts, natural justice, and


-76-


fresh evidence are still in the hands of all parties concerned. Now it is not all together clear to the Applicant, why his documents for outstanding disclosure and further disclosure before the panel was rejected? Hence, a prudent investiga-tion into the stated issue is in the interest, in order to move forward legally towards the ends of justice.”

(Wayne Ferron, April 12, 2011 REQUISITION to DEPUTY REGISTRAR TO ADJOURN OR CHANGE RETURN TO MOTION M38706 {...} TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE PANEL(07-02500/07-02559))

[164] On the 26th of April 2011, I served on the Crown and filed at the COURT OF AP-

PEAL FOR ONTARIO, Registrar a NOTICE TO THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND

CROWN for MOTION DATES April 29, 2011 and May 20, 2011(C51190), for the fol-

lowing reasons;

“The CHARTER is transcendental and it also applies to the Legal Administrative process . I am invoking my section 7., 11 and 15 legal rights. Whatever deal or compromise or promises possibly made between the Attorney General and the Registrar is between them and does not concern me. What concerns me is my fair trial rights, whether the Registrar is acting as agent for the Crown’s counsel and further biasing the processing against me, I don’t know?

I say again, My charter Rights has been violated, I am invoking the relevant sec-tions of the Charter, and I am invoking section 24(1) and 32, to have the matter placed before a court of competent jurisdiction for issues to be con-tested byway of open persuasion in front of an impartial tribunal and rem-edy to be determined on a balance of probabilities.

It seems as though seeking the truth while maintaining the judicious part in the process has no relevance in the matter before use.

{...} I cannot make a formal requisition, with formally signed documents of concerns

and discrepancies in accordance with civilized practice in law, without them being ignored.”

(Wayne Ferron, April 12, 2011 NOTICE TO THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND CROWN for MOTION DATES April 29, 2011 and May 20, 2011(C51190))


-77-


[165] On the 27th of April 2011, I served on the Crown and filed at the COURT OF AP-

PEAL FOR ONTARIO, Registrar a NOTICE TO REGISTRAR AND CROWN to with-

draw MOTION M38706 returnable on April 29, 2011 M38706(C51190), for the follow-

ing reasons;

“a) M38706 need to be PLACED BEFORE A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDIC-TION. I AM INVOKING MY CHARTER RIGHTS!

‘A person’s words wear their bond and the precious treasures of intentions they display proudly around their neck. The quality and integrity of a person depends on one fulfilling ones promises. Ones honour is encapsulated by his words. A person in high public office car-ries the reputation of the said office. The said public office builds and binds public confidence in the integrity and equity of the im-plementation of the Criminal Code.’

(Wayne Ferron, Applicant)

b) The CHARTER is transcendental and it also applies to the Legal Administrative process . I am invoking my Section 7., 11 and 15 legal rights.

c) I say again, My Charter Rights has been violated, I am invoking the relevant sections of the Charter, including section 24(1) and 32, to have the matter placed before a court of competent jurisdiction for issues to be contested byway of open persua-sion in front of an impartial tribunal and remedy to be determined on a balance of probabilities in accordance with civilized practice law.

d) I respectfully request, an investigation by the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE into events surrounding MOTION M38706. So that I may be knowledgeable of the irregulari-ties concerning MOTION M38706, so I may be empowered in making informed decisions in regards to my matter(C51190) and M38706 within the context of FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS, the CHARTER, and THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.”

(Wayne Ferron, April 27, 2011 REQUISITION to DEPUTY REGISTRAR TO ADJOURN OR CHANGE RETURN TO MOTION M38706 {...} TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE PANEL(C51190))


-78-


[166] On the 3rd of August 2011, I served on the Crown and filed at the COURT OF

APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Registrar a MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISI-

TION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706(C51190), for the following reason;

“the Applicant is requesting a written copy of the result of the investigation articu-lating the findings of the investigation for M38706(C51190)”

(Wayne Ferron, April 27, 2011 MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706(C51190))

[167] After many months, there has been no formal document served on me for the

result of the requested investigation surrounding motion M38706 by the COURT

OF APPEAL Registrar or agents of the Minister of Justice. In-fact, there was no in-

vestigation done by any government institutions or public agents. I wanted the applica-

tion of my rights to be administered to and the false hood of the matter in question to be

expunge, so that the truth can reveal itself. But it was not to be; this was not the case.

This is the reason for me filing MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION

FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 M40323(C51190) ), in the first place.

[168] I requested an investigation into the matter of MOTION M38706, but I have

received no official documents or briefs of the said investigation. On June 8, 2011

while before the Honourable Justice Rosenberg, I informed the court that I need

an investigation into the matter concerning MOTION M38706. I HAVE RECEIVED

NO INFORMATION CONCERNING THE REQUESTED INVESTIGATION BY THE MIN-

ISTER OF JUSTICE or its PUBLIC AGENTS.


-79-


[169] This lack of effort, prudence and desire in seeking the end of justice in the

TRUTH SEEKING PROCESS prompted me to file two motions before the Honourable

Justice Rosenberg;

MOTION FOR DIRECTION FOR THE HEARING OF APPEAL (M40301),Returnable on the 15th of August, 2011, at 10:00 a.m

MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323) , Returnable on the 15th of August, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.

[170] On the 15th of August, 2011 the honourable Justice Rosenberg determined for

MOTION FOR DIRECTION FOR THE HEARING OF APPEAL (M40301), that the Ap-

peal Hearing would remain at 1 hour even though I pointed out that review of two of the

exhibit 2, exhibit 6b and a fresh evidence CD would exceed the allocated 40 mins.

[171] In the face of a silent Crown, whom I am utterly unaware was present because

there was no formal introduction by the new Crown council to the Court or my person;

Justice Rosenberg disclosed the name of the third new Crown’s counsel and informed

my person that their is no need or binding requirement on the Crown to notify the Appli-

cant of a change in Crown counsel; at least this is my personal interpretation of his

statement concerning notification of change in Crown’s counsel.


-80-


[172] In contrast, the Rules of Civil Procedure makes a demand on my person to for-

mally notify the Crown and Registrar of any change in council. Furthermore, after a

passionate plea for an investigation into M38706, the Honourable Justice Rosenberg or-

dered me to return the next day (August 16, 2011) for the hearing of MOTION FOR DI-

RECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323),

after a passionate plea of a denial of natural justice.

[173] During the hearing before the Honourable Justice Rosenberg, the Crown(if he/she

was present), never spoke one word in addressing the matter of investigation of

M38706 before the Court, even though I requested an investigation from the Ministry of

Justice. In fact I still have not seen or hear the voice of the new Crown’s counsel or

know if he/she was present at the hearing on August 15 & 16, 2011; I still do not know

what he/she look like or sound like. The Honourable presiding Justice quickly went

through different events surrounding M38706, which I reasonable believe and do be-

lieve were out of context. However, I was allowed to make comments on whatever he

was saying.

[174] During the entire hearing the Crown did-not say one single word of rebuttal or for-

mal introduction to what was suppose to be the presentation of my Motion, I just simply

felt like I was informally being crossed examined. I still don’t know if the Crown was in

attendance at the said hearing; the Crown council who now has carriage and control of

C51190, introduced himself to me on December 9, 2011 and made the comment that we


-81-


have never met before. So was the Crown in attendance on August 15/16, 2011 for the

two hearings? In addition to my confusion concerning the capacity Justice Rosenberg

was acting in. Was he the referee for the contended issues between me and the Crown

or was he acting in the capacity of Crown’s counsel? I don’t know the answer to these

questions? Why did the Crown’s counsel not formally introduce him/herself to the Court

and give a rebuttal argument to what was suppose to be may motion for both days(Aug

15&16) of the said Hearing?

[175] On August 16, 2011, The Honourable Justice Rosenberg when through a series

of selected events which I was expected to agree to, oppose, give explanation or what-

ever the case may be; I was not afforded to present an argument in the usually way.

The hearing felt more like a cross examination to me. The Hearing for MOTION FOR DI-

RECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323)

was not held in the usually standard format; in-fact the Crown’s counsel never said one

word or give a rebuttal argument or even identified himself/herself and his/her client for

the two days before Justice Rosenberg for motions M40301 and M40323. It is as

though the Crown’s counsel did not exist or was absent for all practical purpose.

“R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M40301 (C51190) ROSENBERG J.A.

August 16, 2011


-82-


On February 7, 2011 Justice MacPherson ordered that the appeal would be based on the appeal book as prepared by the Crown. That order disposes of the issue raised in M38706. The Appeal will proceed as schedule on September 8, 2011. The appellant will have an hour to argue. The application for leave to appeal and if leave is granted the appeal. Arrangements have been made with ...”

(Rosenberg J.A., August 16, 2011, unofficial, typed version of handwritten endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M40301(C51190))

[176] The honourable Justice Rosenberg fail to disclose the legal instrument, the legal

precedence or the relevant laws the Honourable Justice MacPherson was using to “dis-

pose of” MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE(M38706). Moreover, the Honorable Justice

Rosenberg erred in endorsing the incorrect court documentation on August 16, 2011.

He mistakenly or whatever the case maybe, endorsed M40301(heard on August 15,

2011), instead of endorsing MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR

AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323) which was heard on the 16th of August

2011 in accordance with Justice Rosenberg’s Court Order on the 15th of August 2011 to

return for the next day for the Hearing of MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUI-

SITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323). There has not been any for-

mal presentation or disclosing of investigative papers in relation to M38706.

[177] Moreover, the honourable Justice Rosenberg further inferred or is very vague on

the said point, that the Honourable Justice MacPherson on one or both of these dates

December 13, 2011 and February 7, 2011 heard motion M38706, dismissed it and then

closed it, since the context we were speaking in was the notified closing of M38706.


-83-


[178] At leas this is the feeling and humble understanding I came away from the

same hearing with. I could be wrong, but this is the apparent impression I got with in the

humble scope of my limited understanding of legal business. However, if this is the

case, then this is an error of fact and points to and error in law!

[179] This said event never happened, the Honourable Justice MaCPherson never

held a fair hearing on MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE M38706; it was when I realized that

he was unilaterally perfecting Appeal(C51190), without the just determination of con-

tended issues on a balance of probability, I advises the Court in the few remaining min-

utes in clear and concise language that M38706 was still open and the Crown(Mr Asma)

concurred with this fact; moreover, Justice Macpherson was already completing his

February 7, 2011 Court Order; in short he was already writhing on the BACKPAGE Ap-

peal Book(C51190) when I advised him of the status of M38706, to silently alert him of

the blatant denial of NATURAL JUSTICE.

[180] This was part of my complaint to the Judicial Council against Justice MacPher-

son immediately after the February 7, 2011 inmate Court Appeal TBS appearance, I

filed a formal complaint to the Judicial Council. Clearly their is an elephant in the room;

so I respectfully request that MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR

AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323)(C51190), be Endorsed in clear and precise


-84-


language on more than one instance and a reply in the affirmative when the same pre-

siding Honourable Justice seek conformation of my request.

[181] In any event the Honourable Justice Rosenberg promised to send to the Home-

less Shelter‘s address (2500 Cawthra, Mississauga) a copy of his endorsement for the

same MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION

OF M38706 (M40323).

[182] In accordance with my account of evidence surrounded M38706, this is what

happened in short. On the Friday 15th of October 2010, I received the Crowns 22

page REPORT/POSITION of their 9 Months prudent professional investigation.

[183] On the Monday 18th of October 2010, I was expected to give my position on the

Crowns 22 page REPORT/POSITION with zero business days service. I advised the

Honourable Justice Laskin of the Aforesaid and advised him that ‘I do not agree with

the Crown’s position”, as a response to his question.

[184] There was never any agreement of fact. Never! He adjourned the

matter(C51190) to December 13, 2010, to what I reasonable believed would be a fair

hearing to deal with contended issues in an adversarial judicial system. This is why I file

and served my 107 page response to the Crown’s position well ahead of time. So it

could be read and the matter dealt with quickly and efficiently.


-85-


[185] On the of 13th of December 2010, I was trying to advised the Court of my position

and the merits to my Transcript request because I was under the impression that I was

called “to be spoken to” to work out the contested issues on outstanding further disclo-

sure and Transcripts. The presiding Justice made is determination or opinion or what-

ever the case may be in regards to Transcripts without the benefit of a fair hearing on

the balance of probabilities. This was done by my person and filed and serve to the

Crown and Court well ahead of time; his position was in the form of a 107 page re-

sponse to the Crown’s position.

[186] On the of 13th of December 2010, I tried in vain to advise the court of my dis-agreements with the Crown’s position. Furthermore, about a week earlier I had filed

and served a formal 107 page response document on the areas of disagreement or ar-

eas I contested the Crowns position to no avail. I expected my 107 page document to

be reviewed by the Crown and Court, so that the contested issues could be dealt with

quickly and prudently in a just and fair determination on a balance of probabilities. But

this was not the case(please see EXHIBIT R2).

[187] On the of 22nd of December 2010, I brought forward a motion, (MOTION FOR DI-

RECTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE AND TRANSCRIPTS(M38706), returnable

on 24th December 2010, which was moved to 22nd of December 2010, at the request of

the Court.) This was an attempt by my person to put before the Court my dissatisfaction


-86-


of the methods used in dealing with the contended issues and my denial of natural be-

fore the Court at the December 13, 2010 Hearing “to be spoken to”. This was also an at-

tempt to officially place before the Courts my position in Affidavit format. The motion was

adjourned to February 7, 2009.

[188] If it is the case that the Honourable Justice Rosenberg’s M40301 Endorsement,

which should have been MOTION FOR DIRECTION FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN

INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323) ENDORSEMENT, is without error, then

Honourable Justice Macpherson’s unilateral disposed of or closed M38706(C51190)

without the benefit of a fair hearing or a written articulated endorsement of the reasons

for his ruling on M38706(C51190) or the weighing of contended issues in a legal scale

on a balance of probability.

[189] The Honourable Justice MacPherson’s decisions before the panel on February

7, 2011 concerning his Ruling on Motion (M38706), need to be placed before the

Panel of Judges for the Appeal.

[190] Similarly, the Honourable Justice Rosenberg’s decision August 16, 2011

decision/Endorsement of M40301, which should have been MOTION FOR DIRECTION

FORMAL REQUISITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF M38706 (M40323)

ENDORSEMENT, need to be placed before the Panel of Judges for the Appeal. There

are discrepancies in Justice Rosenberg’s said decision which points to “elephant in

the courtroom” in addition to the same Honourable Justice making an error in


-87-


endorsing the wrong motion document; furthermore, there are filed materials by the

Applicant which dramatically conflicts with the Honourable Justice Rosenberg’s decision

to which there is legal consequence.

[191] Justice Watt decline to exercise jurisdiction over a MANDAMUS(C51190)

matter placed before him at the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL.

Sworn before me at the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario, on the 23rd day of April 2014.

Wayne Ferron (Private Prosecutor/Informant)

Commissioner for Taking Affidavits (or as may be)

THAKE NOTICE: THE AFORESAID IS A COPY OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF WAYNE FERRON FOR THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMISSIONED ENDORSEMENT.


-88-



-89-



-90-



-91-



-92-



-93-



-94-


All of which is respectfully submitted.


-95-


Sunday, September 10, 2023

_____________________________Wayne FERRON(Informant)

1-18 Earlscourt Ave. Toronto, ON, Postal CodeM6E 4A6

Tel: 416 420 1353, WORK'S SOMETIMES Email: I HAVE NO ISP ACCOUNT

TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RECIDENCE 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 ADRESS BY REGULAR MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAY TIME, I MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

TO: The Clerk of the Court--RegistrarCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIOOsgoode Hall130 Queen Street WestToronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5 Tel: 416 327 5020Fax: 416 327 6032

AND TO Pursuant to Rule 26: I am being forced or compelled against my will to contravene the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, and JUSTICE I. ANDRE' July 8, 2013 “COURT ORDER” which takes away all my legal rights in any ONTARIO COURT to engage in legal proceedings. The aforesaid unlawful coercion is causing me a lot of unnecessary personally stress WHILE STEALING RESORCES FOR SUPREME COURT PREPARATION; when the law, and the “VEXATIVE LITIGANT COURT ORDER” could be simply complied with by all parties in addition to all Judges until the SUPREME COURT make a determination on the vexative matter in addition to willfully impeding S.C.C. MATTERS.

-96-


The Attorney General of OntarioConstitutional Law Branch4th floor720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

fax: 416 326 4015

AND TO:

The Attorney General of CanadaSuite 3400, Exchange TowerBox 36, First Canadian PlaceToronto, Ontario M5X 1K6

fax: 416 973 3004

AND TO Deborah Krick, CROWN COUNSELThe Attorney General of OntarioCriminal Law Branch6th floor720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

fax: 416 326 4015


-97-



WAYNE FERRON-versus-

HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Court file No.: C56817


PROCEEDING COMMENCED ATOsgoode Hall130 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5

_________________________________

AFFIDAVIT of Wayne FERRON(PRIVATE PROSECUTOR/ INFORMANT)

_________________________________Wayne FERRON

1-18 Earlscourt Ave. Toronto,ON, M6E 4A6

Tel: 416 420 1353, WORKS SOMETIMESEmail: I HAVE NO ISP ACCOUNT

TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RECIDENCE 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 ADRESS BY REGULAR MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAY TIME, I MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.


wordpress.com · web viewaffidavit of private prosecutor pursuant to rule 26 pursuant to rule 26: i...

Documents