text:
PART 1 - WHY I AM HATED, DISPISED, AND LEGALLY BULLIED IN ONTARIO COURTS?
Folder Contents
Author's Full Portfolio
Court file No.: CV-12-0716-00
(Central West Region)
WAYNE FERRON
-versus-
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OF CANADA
PAULETTE MELANSON
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
J. SANTINO
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
MINISTRY of COMMUNITY SAFETY and CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
PETER WESTGATE
JEFFREY COSTAIN
JOANNE STUART
MATTHEW ADAMS
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK
YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL
PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES
#2261 PEKESKI M.
WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM
DR. JEFFRY D. HANDLER
DR. R HOOD
DR. PARTHA ACHARYYA
DR. CHARLES A. OHENE-DAR KOH
MRS. HAMILTON(Nurse in charge)
CINDY KREIGER
HARRY BOOM
VOLUME 1 of 2
AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM
(ACTION COMMENCED BY NOTICE OF ACTION)
NOTICE OF ACTION ISSUED ON FEB. 22, 2012; Pursuant to Rule 14, of the RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AMENDED CLAIM
The plaintiff's claim is for:
OFFICER PEKESKI(2261):
1. RELATIONSHIP WITH EMPLOYER: Master and Servant
2. RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF: Public Peace Officer
3. Intentional Tort of Trespass to Real Property, to which Officer Pekeski(2261) is liable.
4. Intentional Tort of Conversion, to which Officer Pekeski(2261) is liable.
5. Tort of Negligence of Duty to which Officer Pekeski(2261) is liable; furthermore, Police Chief H. M. Metcalf, Peel Regional Police services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
6. Tort of False Imprisonment, to which Officer Pekeski(2261), Dr. Jeffery D. Handler, and Dr. David Koczerginski are liable; furthermore, William Osler Health System, Regional Municipality of Peel, Police Chief H. M. Metcalf, Peel Regional Police services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
7. Constitutional Tort Section 10.(a) and Section 10.(b) and Section 24.(1) to which Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario and Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Canada are vicariously liable.
8. CAUSE OF ACTION: fraud/deception, unlawful arrest, unlawful confinement, assault/battery, aggravated assault, misfeasance of duty, nonfeasance of duty, breach of Professional Standard of Reasonable Care, theft by BAILIFF with no colour of right to property or the express permission of the Plaintiff, trespass to chattels with out the express permission of the Plaintiff; is the right to be represented by competent legal professional advocate, a false right?
[1] The Applicant reasonable believe and probable believe and do believe that Officer Bachoo S.(3180) was Officer Pekeski M.(2261) partner on or about he 25th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Mississauga/Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel; she had no visible badge number displayed, she refused to disclosed her identity on more than 10 request to do so and she lied in her police report about giving a warning to the Plaintiff for allege trespassing.
[2] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 25th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Mississauga in the Regional Municipality of Peel did, Officer Pekeski M.(2261) and Officer Bachoo S.(3180) while refusing to identify themselves and to disclosing the capacity they were acting in after being asked more than ten time to do so, in addition to having carriage and control of the Plaintiff and his property, and being duly sworn to effect an officers duties while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in Right of Ontario did, effect an unlawful arrest in contravention of Section 495 subsection (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada and Section 10. clause (a), clause (b) and Section 11. clause (a) of the Charter.
[3] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 25th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Mississauga in the Regional Municipality of Peel did, while refusing to identify himself and to disclosing the capacity he was acting in after being asked more than ten time to do so, in addition to having carriage and control of the Plaintiff and his property, and being duly sworn to effect an officers duties while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in Right of Ontario did commit, Theft by Bailee of Things Under Seizure, by failing to return or deliver to his person or made available for deliverable to the Plaintiff's personal property(2 bags, phone, wallet, bus tickets, bank card, Driver's Licence ID, York University ID, O.H.I.P. Health Card, Premiere Fitness ID, many keys, pink and purple note book, copy cards, other ID, and personal hygiene pouch with personal hygiene materials etc.); all of which was seised by Officer Pekeski M.(2261) while effecting an allege unlawful arrest and put under the same Officer's carriage and control, and was not presented to the Plaintiff or return to him upon request at the time of release after one day of allege unlawful imprisonment at WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL; nor was the said seize property presented to his person at the time of release after about thirteen days of allege unlawful imprisonment at WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, in contravention of Section 324. of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[4] Furthermore, OFFICER #2261 Pekeski, M. (12B), having seized the Plaintiff's personal belongings and exerting carriage and control over the same seized property to which he had colour of right; furthermore, the same Officer continued to effect his authority, care, guardianship or jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's property became in essence the BAILIFF of the Plaintiff's seized personal property, for example "the finder of mislaid property becomes a bailee thereof."
[5] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 25th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Mississauga in the Regional Municipality of Peel did, while refusing to identify himself and to disclosing the capacity he was acting in after being asked more than ten time to do so, in addition to having carriage and control of the Plaintiff and his property, and being duly sworn to effect an officers duties while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in the Right of Ontario did, disclose to his person at the PEEL CIVIC HOSPITAL while in the presence of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM medical staff and Officer Bachoo S.(3180) did, disclose a false name of Perkins(2261) instead of his legal name of Pekeski(2261) in contravention of his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care of law enforcement Officers. Furthermore, Officer Bachoo S.(3180) who on reasonable belief is believed to be Officer Pekeski M.(2261) law enforcement partner failed to disclose her name and badge number.
[6] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 25th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Mississauga in the Regional Municipality of Peel did, while refusing to identify himself and to disclosing the capacity he was acting in after being asked more than ten time to do so, in addition to having carriage and control of the Plaintiff, effect an arrest of his person under false pretense for trespassing on what is allege to be wrongly determined private property to which 2500 Cawthra Rd has colour of right, and under the guise of or assertion given by the same officer that he the Plaintiff, would be transported to 12 Division for processing; but he instead was transported in Cruiser 52 to a dark secluded undisclosed location far removed from DEVISION-12, while under the appearance of arrest and without being duly informed in a meaning full way of his legal rights and the same rights being executed forthwith in a meaningful way, in contravention of Section. 361 subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada and in contravention of Section 42 subsection (1) of the Police Service Act.
[7] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 26th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel, at the PETRO CANADA located at 7995 Dixie Rd. did, while being duly sworn to effect an officers duties while employed in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario did, effect an unlawful arrest in contravention of Section 495 subsection (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada and Section 10 subsection (a), subsection (b), and Section 11 subsection (a) of the Charter.
[8] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 26th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel, at the PETRO CANADA located at 7995 Dixie Rd. did, while being duly sworn to effect an officers duties while employed in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario did, effect an unlawful arrest in contravention of Section 495 subsection (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada and Section 10 subsection (a) and subsection (b) of the Charter.
PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES:
2. RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF: Law Enforcement Institution
3. Tort of Negligence of Duty to which Officer Pekeski(2261), and unnamed Peel Regional Police Services Officers are liable; furthermore, Police Chief H. M. Metcalf, Peel Regional Police services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
4. Tort of Assault, to which Officer Pekeski(2261) is liable; furthermore, Police Chief H. M. Metcalf, Peel Regional Police Services Officers, Peel Regional Police Services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
5. Tort of Assault and Battery, to which Officer Pekeski(2261) is liable; furthermore, Police Chief H. M. Metcalf, Peel Regional Police Services Officers, Peel Regional Police Services and Her Majesty in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
6. Tort of False Imprisonment, to which Officer Pekeski(2261), Dr. Jeffery D. Handler, Dr. David Koczerginski, Dr. Hood, Dr. Partha Acharyya and Dr. Charles A. Ohene-Dar Koh are liable; furthermore, William Osler Health System, Regional Municipality of Peel, Police Chief H. M. Metcalf, Peel Regional Police services and Her Majesty in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
7. Constitutional Tort Section 9, Section 10. clause(a), Section 10. clause (b), Section 11 clause (a), Section 12., and Section 15 subsection (1). in conjunction with Section 24. subsection (1) and Section 32. subsection (1) clause (b) of the Charter, which Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario are Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario vicariously liable. Furthermore, Section 1., Section 8. and Section 9. of the Human Rights Act for which Her Majesty in the Right of Ontario is vicariously liable for.
8. CAUSE OF ACTION: fraud/deception, unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, assault, aggravated assault, misfeasance of duty, nonfeasance of duty and negligence of duty owed to the public, and contravention of Professional Standard of Reasonable Care owed to Public; is the right to be represented by competent legal professional advocate, a false right?
[9] The Plaintiff alleges that THE PEEL REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and it's relevant staff damage the Applicant's matter(C51190) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO by impeding him from fulfilling the requirements for perfecting his appeal(C51190) when they unlawfully imprisoned him for 14 days.
[10] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 26th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel, at A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE, located at 7755 Hurontario St. Officer Serville D.(3547), while being duly sworn to effect an officers duties while employed in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario did, effect an arrest of the Plaintiff while he was speaking to a Clerk of the Justice of the Peace Office in seeking to lay an Information for assault against Officer Pekeski(2261) in contravention of Section 495 subsection (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada; furthermore, Section 15 subsection (1) of the Charter, in contravention Section 1. of the Human Rights Act, and in contravention of Section 42 subsection (1) of the Police Service Act.
[11] The Applicant reasonable believe and probable believe and do believe that Officer Halfyard T.(3484) on the 26th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Mississauga/Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel did, while having the Applicant under his custody, transported him from the Brampton courthouse to the Brampton Civic hospital in addition to maintaining him in medal handcuff from 2:30 p.m. to about 11:00 p.m..
Officer Halfyard T.(3484). Furthermore, he confiscated the yellow piece of paper which Officer Pekeski(2261) name was written as Perkins(2261).
[12] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 26th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel, at WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, located at 2100 Bovaird Drive., Officer Halfyard T.(3484) and other unnamed Peel Regional Police Services Officers did, while having the Plaintiff in their custody cause the Plaintiff to suffer unnecessarily in pain and with muscle fatigue for a long extended period of time(about 2:40 p.m. to 11:05 p.m.), about 8 hours while his hands were handcuffed with metal handcuffs behind his back at the same location without lawful excuse while under the Peel Regional Police Services carriage and control in contravention of Section 12 of the Charter.
[13] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 26th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel, at WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, located at 2100 Bovaird Drive., at or about 1:38 a.m., WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM staff and Peel Regional Police Services officers did, falsely imprison the Plaintiff at the same location without lawful excuse in contravention of Section 495 subsection (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada and Section 7, Section 10 subsection (a) and subsection(b) of the Charter.
[14] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 26th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel, at WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, located at 2100 Bovaird Drive., at or about 11:00 p.m.; WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM staff and Peel Regional Police Services officers did, falsely imprison the Plaintiff at the same location without lawful excuse in contravention of Section 495 subsection (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada and Section 7, Section 15 subsection (1) of the Charter.
[15] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 25th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Mississauga in the Regional Municipality of Peel, Officer Pekeski M.(2261) did, while refusing to identify himself and to disclosing the capacity he was acting in after being asked more than ten time to do so, in addition to having carriage and control of the Plaintiff, did assault and batter the Applicant while extracting him from Cruiser 52, at a dark secluded undisclosed location far removed from DEVISION-12, in contravention of Section 265., subsection (1), clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[16] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 25th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Mississauga in the Regional Municipality of Peel, Officer Pekeski M.(2261) did, while refusing to identify himself and to disclosing the capacity he was acting in after being asked more than ten time to do so, in addition to having carriage and control of the Plaintiff, did assault and batter the Applicant while committing aggravated assault, by causing the wounding and damaging of Plaintiff's left finger when a sharp blunt unidentified instrument of cruiser 52 penetrated the left nail, and flesh beneath it on the same hand in addition to causing possible nerve damage to the closes the finger to the damaged little finger of his left hand while extracting him in the prone position from Cruiser 52 at a dark secluded undisclosed location far removed from DEVISION-12 , in contravention of Section 268., subsection (1), clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[17] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 26th day of August in the year 2011 at the City of Brampton in the Regional Municipality of Peel, at the PETRO CANADA located at 7995 Dixie Rd., Officer Pekeski(2261) and unnamed Peel Regional Police Services Officers did assault and batter the Applicant while committing assault and aggravated assault without lawful excuse to the Plaintiff after he called 911 for help and to report an assault by Officer Pekeski(2261) against his person; furthermore, Officer Pekeski(2261) and unnamed Peel Regional Police Services Officers insisted on forcefully putting the Plaintiff without his express permission or lawful excuse, into Cruiser 52 while he was under unlawful arrest and bringing him to where ever they intend to bring him to, without lawful excuse or legal custody and not having the Plaintiff's express permission. Peel Regional Police Services Officers, forcefully picked up the Plaintiff with his hands handcuffed behind his back and forcefully placed him in Cruiser 52 in the prone position. The Plaintiff screamed for help in the following manner;
"Help, please help me!"
[18] Furthermore, when the Police Sergeant held the Plaintiff's neck at pressure points with his strong fingers and other Officers attempted to bend the Plaintiff legs at the knee, he screamed in the following manner;
"Help me! They are hurting me!"
[19] Furthermore, when the Peel Regional Police Officers on location continued with the aforesaid improper assaultive actions with progressive increasing force and pressure while banging him in the head with Cruiser 52's left door, the Plaintiff let out the loudest scream he possible could with his highest pitch voice, similar to a "little girl". The aforesaid, was done in contravention of Section 268., subsection (1), clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada and Section 7, Section 11. subsection (a), Section 10. subsection (a) and subsection(b) of the Charter.
[20] Peel Regional Police Services officers, should have known or aught to have known, that if it is the case that one is placed under arrest or in custody, it should be a lawful arrest in accordance with Law Enforcement Professional Standers of Reasonable Care in conjunction with officers sworn duty, and the Plaintiff's is given the opportunity to contact a lawyer and instruct the same lawyer forthwith. So that the application of his rights could be administered to, in accordance with civilized practice of law in well established legal processes for Canadian democratic system of Governance.
WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM:
1. RELATIONSHIP WITH EMPLOYER: Master/Servant or Independent contractor
2. RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF: Fiduciary, Doctor-Patient
3. Intentional Tort Breach of implied covenant of Duty of Care, to which is liable Mrs. Hamilton(Nurse in Charge), Dr. Jeffery D. Handler, Dr. David Koczerginski, Dr. Hood, Dr. Partha Acharyya and Dr. Charles A. Ohene-Dar Koh.
4. Tort of Defamation, to which is liable, Dr. Jeffery D. Handler, WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM , Peel Regional Polices Services, Regional Municipality of Peel and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
5. Tort of Privacy, to which Dr. Jeffery D. Handler, Dr. David Koczerginski, Dr. Hood, Dr. Partha Acharyya and Dr. Charles A. Ohene-Dar Koh is liable; furthermore, WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, Peel Regional Polices Services, Regional Municipality of Peel and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
6. Tort of Fraud/Deceit, to which is liable, Dr. Jeffery D. Handler, WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, Peel Regional Polices Services, Regional Municipality of Peel and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
7. Tort of Assault and Battery, to which Dr. Jeffery D. Handler, Dr. David Koczerginski, Dr. Hood, Dr. Partha Acharyya and Dr. Charles A. Ohene-Dar Koh is liable; furthermore, WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, Peel Regional Polices Services, Regional Municipality of Peel and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
8. Tort of Negligence, to which Officer Pekeski(2261), Dr. Jeffery D. Handler, Dr. David Koczerginski, Dr. Hood, Dr. Partha Acharyya and Dr. Charles A. Ohene-Dar Koh is liable; furthermore, WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, Peel Regional Polices Services, Regional Municipality of Peel and Her Majesty in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
9. Tort of false imprisonment, to which Officer Pekeski(2261), Dr. Jeffery D. Handler, Dr. David Koczerginski, Dr. Hood, Dr. Partha Acharyya and Dr. Charles A. Ohene-Dar Koh is liable; furthermore, WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, Peel Regional Polices Services, Regional Municipality of Peel and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
10. Tort of Malpractice, to which Dr. Jeffery D. Handler, Dr. David Koczerginski, Dr. Hood, Dr. Partha Acharyya and Dr. Charles A. Ohene-Dar Koh are liable; furthermore, WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL is vicariously liable.
11. Constitutional Tort Section 8., Section 9., Section 10 clause (a), Section 10 clause (b), Section 11 clause (a), Section 12., and Section 15 subsection (1) in conjunction with Section 24. subsection (1) and Section 32. subsection (1) clause (b) of the Charter, which Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario and Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Canada are vicariously liable. Furthermore, Section 1., Section 8. and Section 9. of the Human Rights Act for which Her Majesty in the Right of Ontario is vicariously liable.
12. CAUSE OF ACTION: Invasion of Privacy, assault/battery, Fraud/Deceit, Slander/Libel, Medical Treatment without the express permission of the Plaintiff, Breach of Trust and confidence, breach of implied covenant of duty and care owed to a patient, unlawful confinement, denial of Legal Right, denial of CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, infringement of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, and infringement of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and breach of INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS; is the right to be represented by competent legal professional advocate, a false right.
[21] The Plaintiff alleges that WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM and it's relevant staff damage the Applicant's matter(C51190) at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO by unlawfully imprisoning him and impeding or preventing him from fulfilling the requirements for perfecting his appeal(C51190).
[22] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 26th of August 2011, at about 5:00 a.m. Dr. Jeffry Handler did, slander/libel the Plaintiff in a signed and authored Form 42, used in conjunction with Form 1. in his application to remand the Plaintiff in custody and have him undergo a psychiatric assessment for the determination of an undisclosed mental disease without lawful excuse or disclosed medical justification or obtaining an informed consent for treatment from the Applicant.
[23] The Applicant further alleges, that Dr. Handler in addition to ordering a CAT scan of the Plaintiff's Brain for no medical or an undisclosed medical reason to the Plaintiff, made his application for him to have a psychiatric assessment in the following manner;
"This is to inform you that Dr. Jeffry Handler examined you on 26/08/2011 and has made an application for you to have a psychiatric assessment.
The physician has certified that...he has reasonable cause to believe that you have:
✓behaved or behaving violently towards another person or have caused or are causing another person to fear bodily harm from you; or
✓shown or are showing a lack of competence to care for yourself and that you are suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in:
✓serious bodily harm to yourself;
✓serious bodily harm to another person; or
✓serious physical impairment of you.
The application is sufficient authority to hold you in custody in this hospital for up to 72 hours.
You have a right to retain and instruct a lawyer without delay."
[24] The Applicant further alleges that on the 26th of August 2011, Dr. Jeffry Handler did not in any shape or form review or even inform the Plaintiff of the existence of Form 42 or Form 1, much-less his minimum legal rights in a meaningful way in addition to the medical staff not determining if the Plaintiff was capable of reading or had the mental or intellectual capacity to understand Form 42., in contravention of Section 9., Section 7., Section 10. and Section 15. of the Charter; and in contravention of a doctors sworn professional duty and the implied covenant of duty and care; in addition to violating Section 1. of the Human Rights Act.
[25] The Plaintiff further alleges that the 1st Nurse(an employee of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM), on or about the 27th of August 2011at about 4:00 a.m., in the Acute Mental Care Unit, anxiously rush from her nurses station across the hallway and burst into the Plaintiff's assigned room, did slander the Applicant while declaring in a loud voice;
"who moved the bed."
And also stating at close proximity to his person while looking into his face in a clear and direct loud voice;
"only crazy people exercise this early in the morning!"
in addition to asserting that the Plaintiff was violent and threatening people, in contravention of her professional duty and the implied covenant of duty and care.
[26] The Applicant alleges that starting on or about the 26th of August 2011, at or about 5:00 a.m. WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, and its medical staff did, effect medical Malpractice against the Plaintiff at the BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, Dr. Jeffry Handler, after less that one minute of prudent medical examination and analysis on the Plaintiff, decided to admit him to Acute Mental Health care under Form 1. and have his Brain CAT scanned, even though there was no cuts on the Applicant's head, there was no bumps on his head, he had no headaches, and he was not suffering from trauma to the head except for the trauma caused by the Peel Regional Police Officers.
[27] The Applicant further alleges that WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, is vicariously responsible for the potential of medical malpractice, mental distress, it's staff or contractors negligence of duty; when the security guard assigned to the Plaintiff exceeded his authority and professional capacity, whom did-not understand the dynamic of a CAT scan and could not articulate the process in scanning ones brain, was insistent on this said test. He kept on repeating multiple of time that;
"the doctor ordered it" and the Plaintiff should be taking it.
The said security guard was so insistent and forceful in his language for this said procedure, that the nurses who were responsible for the CAT scan medical procedure, had to boldly tell him in clear and direct language that;
"the patient has the last word on medical procedures!"
[28] The Applicant further alleges that WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM is vicariously responsible for the potential of medical malpractice, mental distress, it's staff or contractors negligence of duty, when a BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL staff, took two vile of his blood without the plaintiff's informed consent for treatment or without dully informing the Applicant of the reasons or justifications for the said action. Moreover drug screening test was performed on the same blood and their is a lingering question of weather the Applicant's bodily substance is being used and stored as a genetic fingerprint? The Plaintiff was not informed of the aforementioned test nor where they disclosed to him; he had to investigate, serve a legal request for personal information and pay about $80.00 to get access to his medical records with in regards to his 14 days imprisonment at the BRAMPTON CIVIC CIVIC HOSPITAL in the Mental Intensive care unit.
[29] The Applicant further alleges that Dr. Jeffery Handler did, commit medical malpractice when he placed the Plaintiff on a FORM 1. after less than 1 min medical assessment, for psychological determination of mental illness or even mental incompetence without even checking the damage to the Plaintiff's left hand or administering to the medical care of it, given that this was the original reason he called 911 and requested to be taken to the hospital.
[30] Dr. Jeffery Handler should have known or aught to have known that a doctor/patient relationship is a relationship forged in trust and confidence, in addition to the great weight his opinion carries in society at large and the foreseeability of damage to the Plaintiff's life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
[31] The Applicant alleges that WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM is vicariously responsible for medical malpractice and mental distress, when the BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL staff on or about the 27th of August 2011 at about 4:00 a.m., when the 1st Nurse in the Acute Mental Unit, asserted on many occasions to the Plaintiff, that the floor which he was practicing Yoga was filthy!! She continued to ramble on about how disgusting the hospital floors were, by stating to the Plaintiff's person repetitively;
"the floor is filthy! the floor is filthy! the floor is filthy..."
[32] If it is the case that the floor is indeed so filthy as being inferred by the 1st Nurse , then this would be an obvious continual violation of the Health and Safety Act; not to mention a flagrant violation of the of Professional Standard of Reasonable Care owed to a patient, and a violation of the implied covenant of Duty of Care, not to do harm to your patient.
[33] The Applicant alleges that on the 26th of August 2011 at about 8:00 a.m., Dr. Koczerginski initiated uninformed discussion for about 30 minutes with the Plaintiff while he was in Custody; furthermore, he had an uninformed discussion or assessment or whatever the case may be with the said psychiatrist, a person in authority and whose articulation and professional opinion carry great weigh in society at large, in the Judicial System and have great foreseeable ramification to the Applicant's life and his beloved child dependent's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness; without being duly informed of his Rights, without having access to competent council to advise him, and without having a lawyer present.
[34] Dr. Koczerginski should have known or aught to have known that a doctor/patient relationship is a relationship forged in trust and confidence and not false imprisonment, in addition to the great weight his opinion carries in society at large and the foreseeability of damage to the Plaintiff's life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
[35] The Plaintiff alleges that on Friday the 26th of August 2011, at or about 11:00 p.m., after the Applicant was arrested for the third time and had his hands cuffed behind his back for about 9 hours by the Peel Regional Police Services, while trying to lay before a Justice of the peace an information for criminal assault charges against Officer Pekeski(2261), at the Brampton Courthouse. The Plaintiff was placed on FORM 1. by Dr. Hood to be mentally assessed and possible declared mentally incompetent. According to the medical staff, Dr. R. Hood saw the Plaintiff for about 7 minutes.
[36] On the aforementioned basis, Dr. R. Hood for undisclosed medical reason to the Plaintiff or whatever the case may be, made an application for the Applicant to be remand in custody for a psychiatric assessment or determination of a unnamed or undisclosed mental disease in the following manner;
"This is to inform you that Dr. R Hood examined you on 26/08/2011 and has made an application for you to have a psychiatric assessment.
The physician has certified that...she has reasonable cause to believe that you have:
[37] The Plaintiff further alleges that on the 26th of August 2011, Dr. R Hood did not in any shape or form review or even inform him of the existence of Form 42. or Form 1., much-less in a meaningful way. The medical staff did-not asked if he was capable of reading or had the mental or intellectual capacity to understand Form 42.; even though Dr. R Hood was making an adverse inference to his mental state in contravention of Section 7., Section 10., and Section 15. of the Charter of Rights and her duly sworn professional duty in conjunction with the implied covenant of duty of care.
[38] Dr. R. Hood should have known or aught to have known that a doctor/patient relationship is a relationship forged in trust and confidence and not false imprisonment, in addition to the great weight her opinion carries in society at large and the foreseeability of damage to the Plaintiff's life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
[39] The Plaintiff alleges that on Saturday the 27th of August 2011, at or about 7:30 A.M., Dr. Koczerginski (2nd time) came to engage him in uninformed conversation in the Acute Mental Health Unit. The Plaintiff immediately informed the said Doctors, that he have not spoken to a lawyer whom would act as his advocate and advise him. Furthermore, he informed Dr. Koczerginski that he was a person in authority and his words carry great weight in society at large and in the judicial system, so he would not be having uninformed conversations with him or making uninformed decisions without his lawyer. furthermore, he advised Dr. Koczerginski that they were in violation of his Section 10 and Section 7. Charter of Rights., and Article 14 of THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, which demand that a lawyer be provided and pay for by the State if a citizen cannot pay for one. This is the minimum legal Rights prescribed by the said covenant, to which the Federal and Provincial Governments or signatures. The Plaintiff boldly declared, he need his Lawyer to make informed decisions! And that was the end of the conversation.
[40] The Plaintiff alleges that on Saturday the 27th of August 2011, while being transferred to the MENTAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT and after informing Dr. Koczerginski of his position in regards to his alleged unlawful imprisonment, at the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, Mental Health Intensive Care Unit; the Plaintiff advise the intake staff that he was a political prisoner who was there against his will and he was on hunger strike until he leaves the said facility that has him in unjust custody. Furthermore, he advised the said staff that he was being held in contravention of Section 10. and Section 7. and have not been informed of his Rights nor given access to a lawyer. Therefore, he will not be having uninformed conversation with anyone in authority nor make uninformed decision without his lawyer.
[41] The Plaintiff alleges that on the morning of Saturday the 27th of August 2011, Dr. Ohene-Darkoh came to engage him in uninformed conversation for the first time in his assigned room(N.1.121). He informed the same doctor that he will not speak to a person in authority without his lawyer. Furthermore, he has not been informed of his Rights nor has he been given the opportunity to obtain council; which would advise him in making informed decisions and having informed conversations. Moreover, the ones responsible for the Plaintiff's custody are in contravention of Section 10. and section 7. of the Charter of Rights. In addition to the aforesaid, they are contravening Article 14 of The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which demands that a lawyer be provided to citizens and be payed for by the State if the said citizen cannot afford one.
[42] Dr. Ohene-Darkoh advised the Applicant that he was on a FORM 1.; which has never been disclosed to him, it is a secret document, and as far as he is concerned a phantom document used to condemn him to unjust and immoral custody without due process of law or the application of his Rights being administered to. The Plaintiff advised Dr. Ohene-Darkoh in a bold voice with clear and direct language, that he need his lawyer and that was the end of the conversation.
[43] The Plaintiff alleges that, on Monday the 29th of August 2011 at or about 4:30 P.M., Dr. Koczerginski came to to engage the Applicant in uninformed conversation in his room(N.1.121), for the third time. The Applicant informed Dr. Koczerginski for the second time, that he will not be speaking to him a person in authority until he has a Lawyer present, so that he may make informed decisions and participate in informed discussions. He affirmed in a strong and direct voice that he need his lawyer.
[44] The Plaintiff further alleges that Dr. Koczerginski, left his room and came back a short time later and advised the Applicant that he has been put on a FORM 3, so that he may have a lawyer and a Rights councilor would attend later to speak to him. He also left a certified copy of a FORM 30.
Which states as follows;
"This is to inform you that you are being detained under the authority of a Certificate of involuntary Admission (FORM 3)...
I completed this certificate on Aug 29, 2011...
I am of the opinion that
a) you are suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,
✓serious physical impairment of you, unless you remain in the custody of a psychiatric facility;
If you wish to challenge your detention, you have the right to a hearing before the Board. You may apply for a hearing by completing FORM 16(attached).
date: August 29, 2011 signature of... physician: Dr. Koczerginski
After you receive this notice, a person called a "rights adviser" will meet with you to inform you as to your rights and help you in applying for a hearing if that is what you wish to do. You have the right to retain and instruct a lawyer without delay."
[45] The Plaintiff alleges that on Tuesday morning on the 30th of August 2011, Dr. Koczerginski came to engage Applicant in uninformed conversation in his room (N.1.121), for the forth time. The Plaintiff informed the same Doctor in clear and direct language that the questionable foundation he is basing is premise, assumption and justification to effect a psychiatric assessment, is mainly based on police brutality, trauma, police deception and lying. Furthermore, he advised Dr. Koczerginski for the third time, that he will not have uninformed conversation with him; for he is a person in authority and his words carry great weight in the judicial system and society at large. he boldly stated that he need his lawyer. This is the third time the Applicant have informed the same Doctor of his position in no uncertain terms.
[46] The Plaintiff alleges that on Wednesday on the 31st of August 2011, at about 12:20 P.M. noon time, Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh came to engage the Applicant in uninformed conversation for the second time in his room(N.1.121). The same Doctor informed him that he was taking over his care for Dr. Koczerginski, who is or appear to be his superior. He asked some questions and the Applicant responded by informing him that the questionable factual foundation he is basing his premise, his assumptions and justification to do a psychiatric assessment is faulty. Furthermore, it is bad science.
[47] The Plaintiff further alleges that he asked Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh to articulate, explain and define the following;
i) his mental state ?
ii) his mental illness ?
iii) "serious physical impairment of you...?" which is the given reason and justification on FORM 30., to hold the Plaintiff in custody and effect a psychiatric assessment or possible declare him mentally incompetent.
[48] The Plaintiff further alleges that Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh on Wednesday on the 31st of August 2011, at about 12:20 P.M noon time, the same doctor could not in any shape or form, articulate, explain or define in a meaningful way the aforesaid medical issues and statements. In short he failed to satisfy the Plaintiff(his Patient/Prisoner) of any existing medical issues for holding him in custody; Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh further failed to identify any mental issues or define a mental state or point to the existence of a mental desease; hence, justification for the Applicant's custody was wanting and in question. Hence, the question of unjust custody arbitrary imprisonment within the context of Section 9. must be explored?
[49] The Plaintiff further alleges that on Wednesday morning on the 31st of August 2011, at about 12:20 P.M. noon time, the Applicant informed Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh;
i) that he did-not hear voices, nor have he ever heard voices, he did-not believe he have special powers, and he does-not believe that someone his following him;
ii) that the conversation they were having was a violation of Section 10 and Section 7 of the Charter, because the Plaintiff have not yet been instructed by a lawyer; to enable him to make informed decisions, give informed answers or have informed discussions with a person in authority. The Applicant boldly declared in clear direct language, that he need to see his lawyer first before he can speak to the same Doctor.
[50] The Plaintiff further alleges that on Wednesday on the 31st of August 2011, at about 1:00 P.M., Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh returned after leaving, in-spite of what the Plaintiff's assertion on the matter of mental illness and false imprisonment in a mental institution after trying to file charges against a Police Officer. Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh made a bold
requisition of the Plaintiff for the first time in clear direct language in contravention of his dully sworn professional duty in conjunction with the implied covenant of duty and care;
"Wayne! Are you willing to take anti-psychotic Drugs...?"
[51] The Plaintiff replied in the negative and asked him if he was crazy. The Applicant know this was being rude, but their is no excuse for this request or silent demand encapsulated in a sort of friendly question.
[52] Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh should have known or aught to have known that a doctor/patient relationship is a relationship forged in trust and confidence and not false imprisonment, in addition to the great weight his opinion carries in society at large and the foreseeability of damage to the Plaintiff's life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
[53] The Plaintiff Alleges that on, Thursday morning on the 01st of September 2011, at or about 11:00 A.M., Dr. Acharyya came to engage him in uninformed conversation covertly, while acting in the capacity or appearance of a medical Doctor solely, instead of acting in the full capacity as a Psychiatric Doctor. He was in possession of a clipboard which he occasionally checked off, take notes or whatever the case may be.
[54] The Plaintiff further alleges that Dr. Acharyya engage him in uninformed conversation covertly without disclosing his intension or objective on issues which a solely medical Doctor would not be interested or qualified to engage the Applicant in.
[55] The Plaintiff further alleges that when Dr. Acharyya , a psychiatrist by profession was confronted with the status of his professional title, he said that he was a psychiatrist and a medical doctor and it is written on his ID TAG, which the Plaintiff could not see until directed to do so; which the Applicant cannot read because he does-not have nor can afford corrective lenses. Furthermore, he did-not formally introduce himself as such in addition to the Plaintiff expecting a schedule visit from a purely medical doctor and not a psychiatrist. Since, the Plaintiff made a request to his assigned nurse for a medical doctor.
[56] The Plaintiff further alleges that when he realized that Dr. Acharyya , was a Psychiatrist and not solely a medical Doctor, which is the capacity he was acting in covertly. he boldly informed him in clear and direct language, that he deceived the Applicant and he was being deceptive and not forthcoming about his full capacity or capacity he was acting in. The Plaintiff clearly and directly asserted to the same Doctor;
"You deceived me sir!"
For they began talking about EKG, Stress-Test for the heart, damage to left hand, and damage to throat before the conversation was led by the said Doctor into the realm of psychiatric assessment.
[57] Furthermore, the Plaintiff strongly informed Dr. Acharyya , a psychiatrist by profession, that he need to see his lawyer before he could speak to him and the medical staff at WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, who were all aware of this byway of the information in his file.
[58] The Plaintiff further alleges that, he informed the said doctor in clear and precise language, that he was violating his Section 10. and Section 7. Rights of the Supreme Law of Canada.
[59] He also asserted to Dr. Acharyya, that he cannot have uninformed conversation with a person in authority before he speaks to his lawyer. Furthermore, he needs his Lawyer and not to be harass by psychiatrists, WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, and its staff.
[60] The Plaintiff further alleges that he felt violated, like he has been mentally raped! No means no! He immediately informed his nurse(Docie) that he need a medical Doctor solely, to give him the results of his EKG, blood-test and apply any further test needed for heart disease(i.e analysis while on treadmill), and not a psychiatrist. he needed due process in the application of his Rights.
[61] Dr. Dr. Acharyya should have known or aught to have known that a doctor/patient relationship is a relationship forged in trust and confidence and not false imprisonment, in addition to the great weight his opinion carries in society at large and the foreseeability of damage to the Plaintiff's life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
[62] The Plaintiff alleges that starting on or about the 2nd of september 2011, WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, and its medical staff did, effect medical malpractice , mental distress, and negligence against the Plaintiff and other relevant personnel at the BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL.
TAKE NOTICE: LEGEND; BUILDING.FLOOR.ROOM
[63] The Plaintiff further alleges, that there is a patient two doors to the left of the Applicant's assigned room; so called, Isolation Room N.1.117, whose first name the Plaintiff reasonable belief to be "Brant". Brant has been possibly exposed to MRSA, an antibiotic resistance bacteria. Brant shared a room upstairs(possible 6th floor), with a person who has been determined to be infected with MRSA or tested positive for MRSA or been exposed to MRSA or whatever the case may be. The aforesaid person was Brant's pass roommate before the Hospital found out that his injuries was caused by an attempt to commit suicide.
[64] The important issue is Brant, a patient who has possible been exposed to MRSA and is deemed to be in isolation by the caution sign on is door(N.1.117), to all medical staff and his visitors; moreover, their is an isolation delineation along with Brant's Room number(Isolation N.1.117).
[65] The Plaintiff alleges that Brant was out all morning and all day on the 2nd of september 2011, even though he was not dully declared by the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, relevant medical staff to be free of any MRSA contamination. Brant, in addition to spending the morning and day outside, spent time in the lunch room while using the phone and finish eating his lunch.
[66] In the evening on the same day, Brant's nurse(Janie) came in to the TV room and asked him to go back to his isolation room. Since, the Plaintiff was in close proximity to nurse Janie and Brant on the sofa adjacent to the one they were sitting and talking in; the Applicant overheard her inform Brant that his MRSA test were not completed and he must go back to his isolation room. Brant replied by saying;
"please don't do that to me!"
[67] Nurse Janie countered by informing him that she allowed him to be out all day already and his test related to MRSA exposer has not been completed or something to that effect.
[68] The Plaintiff further again alleges that, Brant was out all morning and all day. The Applicant had long conversations with him, sat in the same chair and used the same TV converter after he used it. The Plaintiff even handed him his lunch while he was getting in his wheel chair and wipe up the water he left on the arm of the said chair after he left to finish his lunch in the lunch room.
[69] The Plaintiff further alleges that, on Friday evening of the 2nd of September 2011, Brant left his isolation room (Room N.1. 117) covertly and went to the lunch room to use the phone and was using the regularly used Bell phone, which all patients use. This was after his nurse(Janie) returned him back to his room and confined him there until an all clear from the relevant authority of the Hospital. The Applicant promptly informed the orderly, to inform his nurse(Janie), that Brant of isolation room N.1.117, was suppose to be in isolation.
[70] In addition to the Plaintiff having a sore throat, his left little finger and upper part of left nail had an open wound which the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, medical staff refused to stitch close from the 26th of August 2011. Furthermore, the open wound in the left side of his throat which he reasonable believe was caused when Police Officers pulled me up by the back of my shirt thereby choking him with his shirt collar and also grabbing him by the neck with a bare hand, at the Brampton Courthouse, in the Judicial Office at about 2:30 P.M. on August 27, 2011. Their is a 3 to 4 inch scar on the lower part of my neck to show for this use of force action effected by the Peel Regional Police.
[71] The point is, the Applicant have open wounds the antibiotic resistant bacteria (MRSA) could enter his body and proliferate. He was possible being unnecessarily and negligently exposed to MRSA in contravention of the professional standard of reasonable care?
[72] WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, along with the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, vicariously bares the responsibility of its staff and their actions. Nurse(Janie) should have known or aught to have known the risk and foreseeability of possible damage and mental distress she was negligently exposing the Plaintiff, other patients and her fellow staff to possible MRSA contamination.
[73] The Plaintiff alleges that on Tuesday the 06th of September 2011, at or about 9:00 A.M., Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh came to the Applicant's room(N.1 121) to engage him in conversation; the same doctor advised the Plaintiff that he was canceling FORM 3, because he did not observe any bizarre behavior, and was putting him on a FORM 5. Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh articulated his assertion in the following manner;
"I am canceling FORM 3 and putting you on FORM 5, because I have not observe any bizarre behavior..."
[74] FORM 5. states as follows;
"I, Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh the undersigned attending physician, hereby terminate the involuntary status of Wayne Ferron BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL who shall now be continue as an informal or voluntary patient. I last examined the patient on 6 Sep 2011. The decision to terminate the involuntary status of the patient is based on the following factors:
"No evidence of risk of physical impairment or overt
Date 6 Sep 2011"
[75] The Plaintiff alleges that he advised the doctor if he put the Plaintiff on FORM 5. he would be conceding to his position; moreover the Applicant had not spoken to his Lawyer and the Appeal Tribunal's Hearing is on Wednesday or Thursday. Moreover, Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh, said that the Applicant can sign papers to be released or he can stay on a voluntary basis. The RELEASE FROM HOSPITAL form the said Doctor was speaking about says the following;
"I am removing ......................................., from hospital on my volition, even though it is against the advice and direction of my physician(s), and/or staff of William Osler Health Centre.
In making this decision, I hereby release the Hospital, its staff and my attending physician(s) from all claims of any nature that my result as a consequence of this decision..."
[76] The Applicant further alleges that the aforementioned Tribunal Hearing to challenge the merits of Dr. Koczerginski professional opinion and medical determination had no sound or logically valid basis in fact or law; moreover, the subsequent quick last minute termination of a schedule hearing without the plaintiff ever speaking to a lawyer or given the chance to prove his case was a silent admission on the part of the relevant Doctors and WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, of the fallacy in their unlawful imprisonment of the Plaintiff.
[77] The Plaintiff alleges that WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTE, is jointly liable for abusive behaviour of relevant staff members. The Plaintiff further alleges that on Wednesday the 31st of August 2011, at about 9:00 A:M; while he was across the hall from room N.1.125 and at the nurses station, recording notes of the occurrence to insure that he got the facts accurate. Mrs. Hamilton(nurse in charge), instructed the applicant in clear and directed language that the Brampton Civic Hospital policy was not for the Plaintiff("the policy is not for you"); she further asserted to the Applicant, to leave, depart, "get out of here" or something to that effect or else she would have him placed on the "OTHER SIDE." Just for politely requesting pen, paper, and official policy on these said communication materials.
[78] Whatever place him on the "OTHER SIDE" may mean? As for as the Plaintiff is concerned, the aforesaid was a threat which runs contrary to Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada without legal, moral, or reasonable medical professional justification. for example, one patient was sent to "OTHER SIDE" for attacking a nurse, so it may be the case that Mrs. Hamilton is associating the profile of such a patient with the Plaintiff, so she was willing to act in accordance with this falsely perceive profile of the Applicant.
[79] The Plaintiff alleges that on the Tuesday the 07th of September 2011, at about 11:00 A.M. Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh advised the Applicant that he is now on FORM 5., so he is now staying voluntarily; however, the Plaintiff cannot leave the custody of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital, without first signing a RELEASE FROM HOSPITAL form, against the Doctors "BEST MEDICAL ADVICE."
[80] The Plaintiff further alleges that Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh advised the Applicant in no uncertain terms that he is a "type A personality"; furthermore, he is odd and eccentric. The Plaintiff asked the same Doctor to define odd within the context of type A personality? Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh could not in any shape or form articulate the definition of "odd" within the context of a "Type A personality." Therefore, Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh on Tuesday the 07th of September 2011, at about 11:00 A.M. failed to define "odd" a word which was being used to profile the Applicant as having a given mental state in a meaningful way.
[81] The Plaintiff further alleges that on the same day, Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh articulated or asserted the following reasons for his "BEST MEDICAL ADVICE":
"i) The said Doctor require further assessment for mental disorder.
ii) When asked which mental disorders he has identified? He did-not answer in the affirmative and list the said mental disorders. But he said in no uncertain language that; "I am looking for mental disorders." Imagine that, he is looking for mental disorders.
iii) When asked what justification he has? He said "The POLICE REPORT!"
iv) When asked what is in the said "POLICE REPORT", he said; "I am not going to give it to you, you can ask for one to be disclosed to you after the assessment is completed."
[82] The Plaintiff alleges that on Tuesday the 07th of September 2011, at about 9:30 A.M.. Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh requested of of the Applicant for the second time to consume psychotic medication(Risperidone), without a meaningful articulation of medical justification or even in the least a demonstration of convincing evidence supporting his said oral requisition.
[83] The Plaintiff further alleges that he advised the same Doctor in no uncertain terms, that he have not seen a lawyer and he need to see his lawyer. Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh replied by saying that he would be releasing the Plaintiff on the same day at or about 10:00 A.M. and subsequently left the Applicant's room.
[84] He returned shortly after leaving, to ask if the Plaintiff would like him to arrange counseling. The Plaintiff told him that he would like to speak to his lawyer and ask him to explain things. Furthermore; the Plaintiff is in custody and is still a prisoner. Dr. Ohene-Dar Koh replied by saying;
"You are quite a capable individual!",
and left abruptly.
[85] Doctor Ohene-Dar Koh and WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, discharge form(which is unsigned by the Plaintiff), states as follows;
"PATIENT'S DISCHARGE INFORMATION
CONSULTANT: DR. C-Ohene-Dar Koh
FAMILY DOCTOR:
DISCHARGE DATE: 8 Sep 2011
WARD: MENTAL HEALTH INTENSIVE
FINAL DIAGNOSIS: PARANOID PERSONALITY DISORDER
FOLLOW-UP APPOINTMENTS AND SERVICES: (i.e.: Drs., Test, Treatments) NIL(PATIENT DECLINES)
DIET INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN: NIL
ACTIVITY LEVEL: AS TOLERATED
MEDICATION: NIFEDIPINE XL 60MG"
[86] The Plaintiff alleges that on the 14th day of his imprisonment, he served a letter byway of the receptionist and Plaintiff's nurse on Dr. Koczerginski and the "HEAD" of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital. The letter disclosed a mailing address to send information to and a formal requisition to explain in clear and concise language what is meant by your Doctor's "BEST MEDICAL ADVICE" within the context of the Plaintiff's mental illness and mental state. At or about 10:30 A.M. on the same day the letter was found discarded outside the secretary's window in the nurses station under the watchful eye of the security camera. Their has been no formal response or answers from Dr. Koczerginski or the "HEAD" of WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH CENTRE, Brampton Civic Hospital.
[87] The Plaintiff alleges that WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, in conjunction with PEEL REGIONAL POLICE, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL, and HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO are co-jointly liable along with respective staff members for abusive behaviour with relevant staff members for negligence of duty, unlawful arrest, false imprisonment for about 14 days and denial of legal rights, with very little effort placed in ensuring the proper administration of the Plaintiff's rights.
[88] The Plaintiff alleges that WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, Dr. Jeffery D. Handler, Dr. David Koczerginski, Dr. Hood, Dr. Partha Acharyya and Dr. Charles A. Ohene-Dar Koh should have known are aught to have known that holding a suspect in custody without informing them of their legal rights and effecting the same rights forthwith is a constitutional violation or a contravention of the Supreme law of Canada.
[89] Furthermore, a denial of Section 7 of the Charter in addition to NOT administering needed medical services to the Plaintiff while at the same-time effecting other questionable medical procedure not for the benefit of the Applicant or in the Plaintiff's interest, without the express permission of the Patient is a violation of the Professional Standard of Reasonable Care, INVASION OF PRIVACY, AND ASSAULT/BATTERY and it is a foreseeability of civil damage being done to the Applicant, not to mention serious medical risk or medical malpractice; it is the aforementioned tortfeasor entities business to known the law and the foreseeability of unnecessary risk and damage to their patient. The Plaintiff asserts that he only gave oral and implied permission for medical treatment for physical ailment caused by Officers of the Peel Regional Police Services. The Plaintiff's purpose for calling 911 was to report an assault and to have the injuries of the aggravated assault attended to.
[90] The Plaintiff alleges that starting on or about the 2nd of september 2011, WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, and its medical staff did, effect Slander/Libel, medical malpractice, false imprisonment for 14 days, mental distress, and negligence against the Plaintiff and other relevant personnel at the BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL; in addition to damaging the Plaintiff Case(C51190) before the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, which was due for an Appeal Hearing while the Plaintiff was unlawfully Imprisoned at the WILLIAM OSLER HEALTH SYSTEM, BRAMPTON CIVIC HOSPITAL, Mental Intensive Care Unit.
INFORMATIONS, 07-02500:
2. Tort of Defamation, to which York Regional Police Services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
3. Tort of Fraud/Deceit, to which York Regional Police Services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
4. Tort of Privacy, to which York Regional Police Services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
5. Tort of Negligence, of Duty to which York Regional Police Services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
6. Tort of Assault, to which York Regional Police Services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
7. Tort of Assault and Battery, to which York Regional Police Services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
8. Tort of False Imprisonment, to which York Regional Police Services and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario are vicariously liable.
9. Constitutional Tort Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10. clause(a), Section 10. clause (b), Section 11 clause (a), Section 11 clause (d), Section 12., and Section 15 subsection (1). in conjunction with Section 24. subsection (1) and Section 32. subsection (1) clause (b) of the Charter, which Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario is vicariously liable. Furthermore, Section 1., Section 8. and Section 9. of the Human Rights Act for which Her Majesty in the Right of Ontario are Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Canada vicariously liable.
10. CAUSE OF ACTION CAUSE OF ACTION at PRE ARREST STAGE: Harassment of plaintiff by Geoffrey Fardy and his failure to reasonable inform Plaintiff of any allegations, racial profiling, systemic racism, assault, assault/battery, Slander/Libel, deception/fraud, unlawful arrest, unlawful confinement, cruel and unusual punishment, invasion of privacy, trespass to chattel, malicious prosecution, improper/malicious procurement of legal instruments, discriminatory enforcement of the law, nonuniform application of the law, misfeasance of duty, nonfeasance of duty, breach of professional standard of reasonable care, breach of duty owed to the public, denial of legal right, denial of civil and political rights, breach of INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS; is the right to be represented by competent legal professional advocate, a false right.
[91] The Applicant alleges that B. Hird is an Affiant and not an Informant with in the context of laying Information 07-02500 before Justice Forfar.
[92] The Applicant alleges that B. Hird is neither an Informant nor a witness possession personal knowledge of the allegation in Information 07-02500.
[93] The Applicant alleges that William Hird(6058), is the true Affiant for Information 07-02500; furthermore, William Hird(6058) acted in the capacity of a witness, acted in the capacity of an Informant, acted with the false identity of B. Hird, and signed the Jurat in Information 07-02500 as B. Hird instead of his true signature for William Hird, while engaged in a legal process of laying an Information before Justice Forfar and taking an oath of reasonable belief with respect to Information 07-02500 and in the capacity of B. Hird.
ACKNOWLEDGING INSTRUMENT IN FALSE NAME
405. Every one who, without lawful authority or excuse, the proof of which lies on him, acknowledges, in the name of another person before a court or a judge or other person authorized to receive the acknowledgment, a recognizance of bail, a confession of judgment, a consent to judgment or a judgment, deed or other instrument is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 363.
[94] The Applicant further alleges that B. Hird is not a legal entity Working for Her-Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, nor is he the Informant for Information 07-02500; but in-fact William Hird(6058) whom mislead the Administration of Justice while in a criminal process effecting legal instruments in contravention of Section 139, subsection (2), of the Criminal Code of Canada. Furthermore, William Hird(6058) acted in the capacity of B. Hird, signed Information 07-02500 with a different signature to indicate B. Hird, and took an oath of reasonable belief in the capacity and name of B. Hird. contrary to Section. 341, Section 132, and Section 136 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[95] The Applicant alleges that William Hird(6058) is an Affiant and not an Informant with in the context of laying Information 07-02500 before Justice Forfar, and in accordance with Section 2.(INTERPRETATION) subsection (v) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[96] The Applicant alleges that William Hird(6058) falsely acted in the capacity of an Informant in laying Information 07-02500 before Justice Forfar on or about the 28th day of March in the year 2007 at the City of Newmarket in the Regional Municipality of York , while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario.
[97] The Applicant alleges that William Hird(6058) falsely effected a positive oath(false oath), in the capacity of a witness possessing personal knowledge and reasonable belief of the allegations articulated in Information 07-02500 before Justice Forfar, on the 27th day of March in the year 2007, then again on 28th day of March in the year 2007 at the City of Newmarket in the Regional Municipality of York , while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario.
[98] The Applicant alleges that the OFFICER IN CHARGE(DCst Broughton(1079)), falsely assert "impaired operation/over 80 mgs" in Invoice (07-3542); without the application of a Breathalyzer Test and the same impaired status being determined solely on subjective bases of allege "Post Offence Conduct Evidence" byway of unqualified Officers, therein causing the same false assertion to be placed in the YORK REGIONAL POLICE Alpha File or data base, and to be made available to the Federal Government of Canada and quite possible INTERPOL(" Federal law enforcement services " or " Foreign criminal investigators "), in contravention of his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[99] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-In-Charge(DCst Broughton(1079)), falsely assert "impaired operation/over 80 mgs" in Invoice (07-3542) for the main charge against the Plaintiff; without the application of a Breathalyzer Test or the arresting officer being a "qualified field sobriety test officer" and the same impaired status being determined solely on subjective bases of allege "Post Offence Conduct Evidence" byway of unqualified Officers; therein causing the same false assertion to be placed in the YORK REGIONAL POLICE Alpha File or data base, to be made available to the Federal Government of Canada and quite possible INTERPOL(" Federal law enforcement services " or " Foreign criminal investigators "), in contravention of his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[100] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-In-Charge(DCst Broughton(1079)), falsely assert that the Plaintiff consumed drugs in Invoice (07-3542); without the application of a Drugs Recognition Expert Test(DRE Test), and the same impaired status being determined solely on subjective bases of allege "Post Offence Conduct Evidence", without an objective determination of the type of drugs used by the Applicant.
[101] The Applicant further alleges that the York Regional Police Services, publicly claims to be leaders in the Drug Recognition Expert(DRE) Program. Furthermore, the Officer-In-Charge(DCst Broughton(1079), enabled unqualified Officers false determination of of drug use, to be placed in the YORK REGIONAL POLICE Alpha File or data base, to be made available to the Federal Government of Canada and quite possible INTERPOL(" Federal law enforcement services " or " Foreign criminal investigators "), in contravention of his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[102] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-In-Charge(DCst Broughton(1079)), falsely asserts that the Plaintiff was taking off his close and acting irrational. The same Officer articulated the aforesaid in the following manner;
" one in cells male began taking clothes off and acting irrationally,"
in his memorandum note book at about 00:24 on the 28th of March 2007, in the face of evidence to the contrary in the booking video evidence and his fellow Officers assertions, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[103] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-In-Charge(DCst Broughton(1079)), suspended the Legal Rights of the Plaintiff without lawful excuse or reasonable cause, in contravention of the Charter, police policy, and is his inherent duty owed to the public while in the employment of Her-Majesty the Queen as a Peace Officer. Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, not to cause foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[104] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-In-Charge(DCst Broughton(1079)), assert in his INITIAL OFFICER REPORT IMPAIRED, on the 28th of March 2007 at 00:55 in Invoice(07-3542); that "at approximately 00:13 hrs officer 1399 formed reasonable grounds that the Accused Mr Wayne FERRON was impaired by drugs" in contradiction to DC Stribbell's Gregory's(#529)(the Officer task to investigate 07-3542), PROSECUTION SUMMARY-GUILTY PLEA SYNOPSIS, (WAYNE FERRON), in the same invoice. Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[105] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-Task-To-Investigate GO# 2007-70285(DC Stribbell's Gregory's(#529)), asserts about 6 hours after Officer Broughton in his PROSECUTION SUMMARY-GUILTY PLEA SYNOPSIS, (WAYNE FERRON), on the 28th of Mar. 2007 at 06:54 in Invoice(07-3542); that " at 013 hours officers formed the opinion that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by drugs" in contradiction to DCst Broughton(1079) INITIAL OFFICER REPORT IMPAIRED, in the same invoice. Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[106] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-Task-To-Investigate GO# 2007-70285(DC Stribbell's Gregory's(#529)), falsely assert in his SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT, on the 28th of March 2007 at or about 06:54 in Invoice(07-3542), that the Plaintiff was assaultive towards officers. The same Officer articulated the aforesaid in the following manner;
"when officers went to handcuff him the accused became assaultive towards the officers."
Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[107] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-Task-To-Investigate GO# 2007-70285(DC Stribbell's Gregory's(#529)), falsely assert byway of slander/libel in his PROSECUTION SUMMARY-GUILTY PLEA SYNOPSIS, WAYNE FERRON, on the 28th of March 2007 on page 1, comment box 1, in Invoice(07-3542), that;
"...In the past however he has used drugs."
[108] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-Task-To-Investigate GO# 2007-70285(DC Stribbell's Gregory's(#529)), falsely asserts byway of slander/libel his memorandum notebook, on the 28th of March 2007 at about 6:20 a.m., that the Plaintiff used drugs(crack) in the past when he made the following statement;
"Staff Sergeant Ringler called her last night and she advised that he does not do drugs or drink, has used crack in the past, but not for a long time"
[109] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-Task-To-Investigate GO# 2007-70285(DC Stribbell's Gregory's(#529)), falsely asserts byway of slander/libel, while advising the Courts and distributing legal documents, that the Plaintiff's wife told the same Officer personally, about the Applicant's past drug use; the said Officer articulated the aforesaid on more than one occasion, in open court, and while under oath in the following manner;
"... You have used crack cocaine in the past..."
[110] The Applicant allege that the Complainant(Geoffrey Fardy), falsely asserted that the Plaintiff was " up to no good," in the Applicant's own 98% caucasian neighborhood, after identifying the Plaintiff as a "Black male in his thirties.." in his conversation with the 911 dispatch. Furthermore, Geoffrey Fardy on or about March 27, 2007 community of Georgian, in the Regional Municipality of York; did actively beset and watch the Plaintiff's dwelling while his wife and four young beloved baby girls reside inside in contravention of Section 26. subsection(2) clause(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada; did repeatedly follow the Applicant from place to place in contravention of Section 26. subsection(2) clause(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada; furthermore, Geoffrey Fardy undisclosed actions did cause the Plaintiff to fear for the well being of his precious beloved children in contravention of Section 26. subsection(2) clause(d) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[111] The Applicant allege that the Complainant(Geoffrey Fardy), falsely asserted under oath an, in open court, and on the record while he was being cross examined that he was not speeding on March 27, 2007 up until he was shown evidence to the contrary. He articulated the said event in the following manner;
"Q. Okay. Okay - on the 27th of March 2007 in the time concerning this matter, were you speeding at all?
A. Myself?
Q. Yes.
A. No I was not.
Q. You weren't speeding?
Q. Not on Woodbine.
Q. Not on Church?
Q. Deering (ph), Natania?
Q. Okay. When you were travelling on the Queensway as you were approaching Boyer Sideroad, there was a gray Grand Prix that passed you?
Q. The 9-1-1 person told you to put on your four way flashers and I want to ask you if that car was speeding?
A. Again not being a professional to gauge what speed they were going at, they were moving faster than myself."
[112] The Plaintiff allege that, the Complainant(Geoffrey Fardy), clearly states in the message in the 911 log at 23:44 hundred hours, that he was traveling at a speed of 65 Km/h while he was traveling on Church street (50 km/h zone) and simultaneously using his cell phone, just before the north bound turn on The Queensway in the York Regional Police Services 911 Log at 23:44 hours.
[113] The Applicant allege that, the Complainant(Geoffrey Fardy), that there is a clear contradiction in the Complainant's given evidence. Even thought self-incrimination would not be held against a witness while giving evidence with the exception of perjury; the Complainant tries to attribute the statement made to the 911 operator concerning his speeding to the Applicant; this is in addition to using his cell phone while driving at a high rate of speed, which in itself constitutes dangerous driving. He even justifies it with an explanation. Furthermore, he admits to the said operator that he was breaking the law.
[114] The Applicant further allege that, there is an inference of discriminatory practices of the enforcement and application of the law in violation of Section 15 of the Charter and Section 1. of the Human Rights Act.
[115] The Applicant further allege that, the over riding theme in the matter before the court is the discriminatory practice in the Application of the Code and the improper use of very powerful discretional powers to foster inequality and non-uniformity in the legal system.
[116] The Applicant alleges that DC Burd(1075), willfully applied racial prejudgement without material or objective evidence, by calling the accused "crack head" and "asshole", upon first instant of contact, in contravention of the Plaintiff's Charter Rights , the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, and without the application of presumption of innocence, or a reasonable prudent investigation, and while the Plaintiff was in compliance with legal requirements of the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT. Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness. The aforementioned was done in contravention of Section 11(a)., 11(d). and Section 15(1) of the Charter, Section 1. of the Human Rights Act and Section 1 (a) and (b) of the Bill of Rights.
[117] The Applicant alleges that DC Burd(1075) asserts, that Officer Monk removed the Plaintiff from his vehicle by lifting him out when he refused to leave the same vehicle while being instructed to do so by the arresting Officer in contravention of Section 136 subsection(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada; the aforesaid is articulated in the same Officer's notes and corroborated by Officer Burd's given testimony under oath in in open court in the following manner;
"Uniformed officers advised the male he would be under arrest and asked him to step out of the vehicle. The male refused. P.C. Monk unlocked the door of the van & lifted the male out."
[118] The Applicant alleges that Staff Sergeant Bruce Ringler(193), asserts that the Officers who were present on location during the arrest of the Plaintiff, infers that the
Applicant was impaired by illicid drugs. He articulated the aforesaid in the following manner in his memorandum note book at about 12:45 P.M. on the 28th of March 2007.;
"They suspect impaired by drugs - cocaine or crack cocaine..."
[119] The Applicant alleges that Officer Burd(1075), falsely asserts that all Officers present at the arrest of the Plaintiff, collectively formed an objective reason or reasonable cause to arrest, in contravention of Section 136 subsection(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. He articulated the aforesaid in the following manner In his memorandum note book at about 00:13 on the 28th of March 2007;
"... we all collaboratively spoke and decided the male would be arrested for impaired, further investigations would continue after that..."
[120] The Applicant alleges that Officer Williamson(1108), falsely asserts that all Officers present at the arrest of the Plaintiff, collectively formed an objective reason or reasonable cause to arrest, in contravention of Section 136 subsection(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. He articulated the aforesaid in the following manner In his memorandum note book at about 00:13 on the 28th of March 2007;
"...spoke to all officers o/s ...gave phone to P/C Broughton - all officers feel male is impaired by drug, glaze over eyes, paranoid, non-compl, fidgety. P/C Monk making the arrest - told male he is under arrest for impairment ."
[121] The Applicant alleges that Officer Brown(1666), falsely infers that Officer Broughton(1079) in addition to other Officers present, collectively formed grounds to arrest the Plaintiff, in contravention of Section 136 subsection(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. He articulated the aforesaid in the following manner In his memorandum note book at about 00:13 on the 28th of March 2007;
"...meeting with other officers on scene. D/C Broughton, Burd, sgt. Williamson #1108, P.C. Monk #1399. Grounds for arrest formed due to male's actions and officers and witnesses observations of driving."
[122] The Applicant alleges that Officer Monk(1399), falsely asserts that all Officers present at the arrest of the Plaintiff, collectively formed an objective reason or reasonable cause to arrest, in contravention of the Charter and Section 136 subsection(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. He articulated the aforesaid in the following manner In his memorandum note book at about 00:13 on the 28th of March 2007;
"In speaking with sgt. Williamson, D/C Burd, PC Brown, Det. Broughton collectively formed grounds that male was impaired by way of drug ."
[123] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-in-Charge, Dst Broughton(1079) who is the Official owner of Invoice(07-3542) which was used as the bases for information 07-02500/07-02559, used to enable the trial judge to has jurisdiction over it's charges, never formed a reasonable objective grounds to arrest the Plaintiff. The same Officer articulated the aforesaid in the following manner in no uncertain terms;
"That right I had not formed a reasonable grounds to arrest you. ...I certainly had justification to stop your vehicle and investigate you. ...The officers at the time were dealing with you beside the car, had informed me back at the station that they had culminated enough information to form the grounds that you were impaired by drug. ...I had no opinion in it because after the initial contact with you, I was back in the D303 car, phoning Rogers Communication..."
[124] The Applicant alleges that Officers, objective reason or reasonable cause to arrest is not logically valid and it is a false premise in need of validity.
[125] The Applicant alleges that Officer Monk(1399), falsely allege that the Plaintiff was kicking at the cruiser's side rear window, in contravention of the Charter and Section 136 subsection(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. He articulated the aforesaid in his notes in the following manner;
"... got into a - a - a - a reclined position on his back and began to kick at the {...} passenger side rear window of the police cruiser."
[126] The Applicant alleges that Officer Monk(1399), contradicts himself under oath in his given testimony by boldly insisting on more than one occasion, that the Plaintiff was not placed in the prone position while being arrested, while his very own notes clearly states that the Applicant was placed in the dangerous prone position, in contravention of the Charter and Section 136 subsection(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. He articulated this fact in the following manner;
" myself and PC Brown had to lift him into the back seat. - was placed face down -"
Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing cause foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[127] The Applicant alleges that Officer Brown(1666), falsely allege that the Plaintiff was not placed in the dangerous prone position and kicking the window of his cruiser, in contravention of the Charter and Section 136 subsection(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. He articulated the aforesaid in the following manner;
"...he was kicking out the back window."
[128] The Applicant further alleges that 3D HQ, DAY 56 SECURITY TAPE for GO 2007-70285, 28th of March 2007, Officer Monk's own notes, and Constable Chris Larone(1418) notes provides evidence to the contrary to Officer Monk's assertion, that the Plaintiff was not transported in the dangerous prone position in opposition to the "Coroners Best Medical Advice."
[129] The Applicant alleges that the acting sergeant, Officer Williamson(1108), does not remember or cannot independently recollect what the Plaintiff was charged or arrested for. Even though he advised the DRE(Drug Recognition Expert) personally that they would charge the Plaintiff for the "...other slew of things..." or other allege Offences in the face of the inability to determine drug use status of the Applicant. Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[130] The Applicant alleges that he was not Informed of his Legal Rights nor was he allowed to instruct council forthwith, during is 20 minute detainment before Officers effect the arrest in contravention of Section 10, and Section 7 Charter, and Section 2 of the POLICE SERVICE ACT Declaration of Principles. Furthermore, Officers contravene their duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[131] The Applicant alleges that he was not informed of his Rights in a meaningful way nor were they implemented in a meaningful way by Officers in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario. Moreover, during his arrest Officers acted in contravention of Section 10, and Section 7 Charter, and Section 2 of the POLICE SERVICE ACT Declaration of Principles; Officers contravene their duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[132] The Applicant further alleges, that he was not informed of his Rights in a meaningful way nor were they implemented in a meaningful way in accordance with the Charter or an Officers duly sworn duty, in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen, during his detainment, imprisonment, finger printing or photographing. Furthermore, during his arrest Officers acted in contravention of the Charter and Section 2 of the POLICE SERVICE ACT Declaration of Principles; Officers contravene their duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[133] The Plaintiff alleges, that THE-OFFICER-IN-CHARGE DCst Broughton(1079) did, slander the plaintiff Wayne Ferron, by recorded in his note book that the Applicant was taking off his clothes, when he knew that this was not the case. Further, he should have known or aught to have known that his own subordinate Officer Christ Larone(1418) removed the Plaintiff's clothes.
[134] The Plaintiff alleges, that on the 28th of March 2007 THE-OFFICER-IN-CHARGE DCst Broughton(1079) did, slander the Plaintiff Wayne Ferron, by causing a police record to be produced of the Applicant being Impaired with 80 MGS of alcohol in his blood, furthermore he cause the same slanderous/libel information to be stored in the York Regional Police Alpha files without lawful excuse.
[135] The Plaintiff alleges, that on the 28th of March 2007 THE-OFFICER-IN-CHARGE DCst Broughton(1079) did, slander the Plaintiff Wayne Ferron, by causing a police record to be produced of the Applicant being impaired by drugs, which was alleged to be consumed by the applicant, furthermore he cause the same slanderous information to be stored in the York Regional Police Alpha files without lawful excuse.
[136] The Applicant alleges that DC Stribbell's Gregory's(#529)), fraudulently filed a REQUEST FOR RECORDED VOICE COMMUNICATIONS(G0# 2007-70285), for the investigation for the purpose of laying charges on or about the 28th/29th of March 2007.
[137] The Applicant alleges that Dst Broughton(1079) whom was acting in the capacity of The-Officer-in-Charge, asserts that no Warrant was required to search the Plaintiff's vehicle(1D4GP21R77B138672/8920TR); furthermore, advised that he had no reason to search the Plaintiff's vehicle, while under oath in open court. He articulated the aforesaid in the following manner;
"No warrant is required, searching the vehicle is the immediate area upon arrest, it is in the Criminal Code {...} It is in the Criminal Code. It is part of the arrest."
[138] The Applicant alleges that Officer Monk(1399) whom was acting in the capacity of arresting Officer in the employment of Her-Majesty the Queen, asserts that he did not need a Warrant to search the Plaintiff's vehicle(1D4GP21R77B138672 / 8920TR), in contravention of his duly sworn duty to the public. He articulated the aforesaid in the following manner;
" ...I didn't need a warrant,"
Furthermore, he contravene the Charter, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[139] The Applicant alleges that Officer Monk's Warrantless search of the Plaintiff's vehicle occurred between 00:29 and 00:40 on the 28th of March 2007. Furthermore, the warrantless search of the Plaintiff's vehicle occurred while the Applicant was in custody and incarcerated in the "Bull Pen" at 3 Division Head Quarters in the Town of Sutton(miles away from the vehicle in the town of Keswick); the Plaintiff further alleges that the warrantless search by Officer Monk, was an unlawful search and a demonstration of "Trespass to Chattels" and a gross violation of reasonable expectation to privacy ("An unauthorized search of another's purse is a trespass to chattels".) The afore mentioned is Contrary to Section 8. of the Charter and a wanton disregard for the privacy of a member of Canadian society at large.
[140] The Applicant further alleges that Officer Monk contravened his duly sworn duty, in not having lawful authority, nor did have the Plaintiff's personal permission, nor did he ask for the Plaintiff's personal permission, nor did he seek to obtain lawful authority from a court of competent jurisdiction. He boldly violated the Charter, and the professional standard of reasonable care, not to cause foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[141] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 28th of March 2007, in the Town of Georgina, in the Regional Municipality of York, DC D. Burd(#1075) with more than 9 years experience did, dangerously and negligently administered OC-spray to the Plaintiff's eyes while being uncertified and poorly trained in the "use of force" of weaponized chemical agents in contravention of Section 265., subsection (1), clause (a) and Section 268., subsection (1), clause (a) of he Criminal Code of Canada. Furthermore, the Applicant further alleges that he caused traumatization of the Applicant's person, psychological stress from dehumanization of the Applicant's person, and unnecessary pain and long suffering was a readily foreseeable consequence of the aforementioned improper and unwarranted use of a weaponized chemical agent without legal authority, even-though he's deficient in his Health and Safety knowledge, and ill trained in the safe use and application of OC-spray.
[142] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 28th of March 2007, in the Town of Georgina, in the Regional Municipality of York, SGT R. Williamson (#1108), with more than 9 years of law enforcement experience, who drove PS35 (cruiser S35) did, witness the Plaintiff shivering in his cell on the floor with his shirt over his eyes and neglected or refused to obtain an health professional's assistance and recommendation in contravention of Section 12. of the Charter and his duly sworn duty. Moreover, he failed to Act or notify a qualified person, to act responsibly when he noticed the Plaintiff shivering in the "bullpen" at 3DHQ, whereby risking the health and safety of the Applicant he and his fellow Officers had care and control of, in addition to allowing pain and suffering of a person they had in custody to continue unnecessarily .
[143] The Plaintiff alleges that, on or about the 27th of March 2007 SGT R. Williams(1108) did, assault the Plaintiff Wayne Ferron, by shining the light of a very bright flashlight directly into the iris and pupil of the Applicant's eyes, furthermore, slapped off the Plaintiff's hat off his head without lawful cause.
[144] The Plaintiff alleges that, on or about the 27th of March 2007 Officer Monk(1399) did, assault the Plaintiff Wayne Ferron, while his back was facing the same Officer and his hands was behind his back in a passive position and the front of his body was facing his work vehicle, without lawful cause.
[145] The Plaintiff alleges that, on or about the 27th of March 2007 Officer Monk(1399) did, assault the Plaintiff Wayne Ferron, by striking him with his foot multiple times and trowing Plaintiff across road(about 7 feet) byway of a set of actions termed as "long arm toss", without lawful cause.
[146] The Plaintiff alleges that, on or about the 28th of March 2007 Officer Chris Larone(1418) did, assault the Plaintiff Wayne Ferron, while extracting him by his feet in the prone position from Officer Brown(1666) Cruiser, and by her self when many Police men twice her size was available, did cause Plaintiff to the hit concrete floor without lawful excuse; furthermore, she de-cloth Plaintiff by taking off his shirt.
[147] The Applicant alleges that Officer William Hird(6058) did, laid before a Justice of the Peace under false pretense with the false identity of B. Hird, or alias of B. Hird, or Moniker of B. Hird, as the informant to Information 07-02500 while he was employed by Her-Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and acting in the legal capacity of Court Security Officer William Hird, contrary to Section 361, subsection (1), of the Criminal Code of Canada. Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, not to cause foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[148] The Applicant alleges that Officer William Hird(6058) did, mislead a Justice of the Peace(Justice Forfar), while laying before the same Justice with the false identity of B. Hird, as the informant to Information 07-02500 and took an oath of reasonable belief for the same information while he was employed by Her-Majesty in Right of Ontario and acting in the legal capacity of Court Security Officer William Hird, contrary to Section 131, subsection (1), of the Criminal Code of Canada. Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[149] The Applicant alleges that Officer William Hird(6058) did, make a false oath while laying before a Justice of the Peace(Justice Forfar), Information 07-02500 with the false identity of B. Hird, and took an oath of reasonable belief for the same information while he was employed by Her-Majesty in Right of Ontario and acting in the legal capacity of Court Security Officer William Hird, contrary to Section, 138 clause (c), of the Criminal Code of Canada. Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[150] The Applicant alleges that Officer William Hird(6058) did, pervert or obstruct the course of justice while laying before a Justice of the Peace(Justice Forfar) Information 07-02500 with the false identity of B. Hird, and took a positive oath of reasonable belief for the same information, when he should have took an oath on a "reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe" in accordance with parliamentary legislation, for want of personal knowledge of the allege offences in Information 07-02559, while he was employed by Her-Majesty in Right of Ontario and acting in the legal capacity of Court Security Officer William Hird, contrary to Section 139, subsection (2) , of the Criminal Code of Canada. Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty, and the professional standard of reasonable care, not to cause foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[151] The Applicant alleges that Officer B. Hird Information did not have jurisdiction over the allege charges in information 07-02500, nor did information 07-02500 find process, since only a legal entity is given the authority by the Criminal Code of Canada to file charges; furthermore his oath of reasonable belief is a "false oath", his Identity is false and B. Hird does not exist as a distinct legal entity at York Regional Police, as a Police Officer duly sworn and in the service of Her-Majesty the Queen.
[152] Officer B. Hird is in-fact a phantom which has successfully filed an information of reasonable belief, a phantom which has successfully took an oath of reasonable belief before a Justice of the Peace, a phantom which has successfully retained process from Justice Forfar for Information 07-02500, a phantom which has been extremely successful in denying or impeding the Plaintiff's LEGAL RIGHTS and ACCESS TO JUSTICE,
and a phantom which has successfully had a citizen of Canadian society at large charged and convicted as a Criminal in addition to setting a precedence for successful prosecutions based upon criminal acts, acts of omission and without lawful authority or without lawful process, without proper jurisdiction and without the support of the Criminal Code of Canada and without the support of Parliamentary Legislation.
[153] Moreover, a phantom whom has successfully retained a lawyer, and a phantom which has successfully convince the ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, that monies must be paid for cost incurred in civil litigation against B. Hird, the same phantom Officer which does not exist at bar nor is employed by Her-majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario. This is by far the worse fallacy which is permitted to occur in a democratic system of governance, where civilized practice of law is effected. Mainly, the establishment of a precedence to prosecute Canadian citizens on the bases of prosecutors having wanton disregard for the Charter and the Criminal Code of Canada. This matter speaks to the fundamental foundation of the Criminal Judicial System.
[154] The Applicant alleges that the Crown's prosecution which relied upon the process found by B. Hird Information 07-02500 and the process found by Joe Willmets(974) Information 07-02559, is a malicious prosecution based upon criminal actions and act of omissions. Moreover, the Applicant alleges that prosecuting Crown Attorneys effected Legal Fraud to be successful in their prosecution of the Plaintiff; furthermore, the Applicant further alleges that Crown Attorneys effected Legal Fraud to maintain a successful conviction and a continued prosecution of the Plaintiff. The aforesaid is a proximate cause of actions or acts of omission, to use reasonable anticipation in preventing foreseeable damage to the Plaintiff.
[155] The Applicant alleges that he reasonable and probable believe and do believe that, on or about the 13th day of April, 2009 Crown rescinded relevant evidence in the form of a "YRP AUDIO CD" earmarked for disclosure to the Plaintiff, without notice to the Applicant and while Assistant Crown Attorney Mr. Billington had Carriage and control of the Plaintiff's matter(07-02500/07-02559). The Applicant further alleges that the disc contained the audio recordings of all communications between the York Regional Police call centre and all officers dispatched in relation to Incident #07-70285, contained relevant evidence to the contrary to Officers given evidence of the existence of reasonable cause to arrest. The aforementioned is mens rea for crimes committed against the Applicant and State.
[156] The Applicant alleges that Crown's Agents has willfully withheld and suppressed relevant evidence from the Plaintiff, the Public, and the Courts relevant evidence which supports a technical defence denied to the Applicant, relevant evidence which shows Public Agents Crimes of Legal Fraud to deny the Plaintiff of his legal rights while effecting a prosecution which does not have the support of Parliamentary legislation. The aforementioned is mens rea for crimes committed.
[157] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 28th day of July in the year 2008 at the City of Newmarket in the Regional Municipality of York, Ms. Goodier did, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in the Right of Ontario, in addition to having carriage and control, and acting in the capacity of Crown's Counsel for the Plaintiff's matter(07-02559) in the process of a Judicial Trial, did Mislead a Judicial Officer while before the Honourable Justice Kenkel, contrary to Section. 131 subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The same Crown's counsel advised the court with false information on behalf of Officer Broughton(1079), which she articulated to the court in the following manner;
"Now, my officer-in-charge - sorry, I'm just trying to find it. He essentially says that Constable Monk, Now, my officer-in-charge - sorry, I'm just trying to find it. Constable Monk, because I - I believe that was something to do with a communication with Constable Monk, was on loan from Four District and so essentially when he was north of Highway 9 he was lost and didn't know where he was because that's not his area that he normally travels."
[158] The Plaintiff allege, that the honourable presiding Justice partially repeated the aforesaid while lending Judicial credibility to the Prosecutor's false statement in articulating to the Court in the following manner;
"THE COURT: That was, Mr. Ferron, on that one I could see where that might be a problem. They - that you thought the comment was about you, but it's actually, now you're hearing about it, the comment from the dispatcher is just that it's about an officer being lost who doesn't know the region, that part of the region. Does that clear it up? "
Furthermore, she contravene her duly sworn duty inherent in her high public office, in addition to acting contrary to the Attorney General's Directive, in addition to acting contrary to the Matin Report, and in addition to acting contrary to the Federal Prosecution Deskbook; in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[159] The Plaintiff allege, that on the 23rd of July 2008 Officer Monk was given a copy of the above statement to review and asked if the statement above by Ms. Goodier in Para[157] was a true statement? Officer Monk responded with the following articulation;
A. I believe that it,s in reference to yourself.
Q. So what you read there, is that correct?
THE COURT: Well I think you have a point. The statement actually applied to yourself and not to him, okay.
MR. FERRON: Is it correct?
THE COURT: So next?
A. It's not connect (sic) - it's not correct. And I didn't make it. I didn't have this correspondence.
MR. FERRON: Okay.
A. So I can't attest to the validity of it.
Q. So it's a false statement written here in the transcript which you read, which I'm not allow to hear?
A. On....
THE COURTS: Again, his evidence is , is it correct - or - you know - he's given evidence. You can make your submissions at the end of the case as to what if anything comes from that. Okay. Do you have any other questions about this document or call history, is that what this is, is this a call history, is that the name of it - or...
[160] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 20th day of July in the year 2009 at the City of Newmarket in the Regional Municipality of York, Mr. P. Westgate did, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in the Right of Ontario, in addition to having carriage and control, and acting in the capacity of Crown's Counsel for the Plaintiff's matter(07-02559) in the process of Appeal of Right, and acting in the capacity of Crown Attorney, did act under false pretense while before the Honourable Justice Bryant by strongly inferring that the Crown was not in possession of the April 28, 2008 Transcript(07-02559), when the Crown was in possession of the same Transcript since July 03, 2009, contrary to Section. 361 subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[161] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 20th day of July in the year 2009 at the City of Newmarket in the Regional Municipality of York, Mr. P. Westgate did, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in the Right of Ontario, in addition to having carriage and control, and acting in the capacity of Crown's Counsel for the Plaintiff's matter(07-02559) in the process of Appeal of Right, did Mislead a Judicial Officer while before the Honourable Justice Bryant by misleading the same honourable Justice in securing a Court Order against the Plaintiff to attend the Crown's Office with all Transcripts(07-02559) in his possession, while the Crown was in possession of the same outstanding Transcript(07-02559) since July 03, 2009, contrary to Section. 131 subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[162] Furthermore, he contravene his duly sworn duty inherent in her high public office, in addition to acting contrary to the Attorney General's Directive, in addition to acting contrary to the Matin Report, and in addition to acting contrary to the Federal Prosecution Deskbook; in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[163] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 14th day of September in the year 2009 at the City of Newmarket in the Regional Municipality of York, Mr. P. Westgate did, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in the Right of Ontario, in addition to having carriage and control, while acting in the capacity of Crown's Counsel for the Plaintiff's matter(07-02559) in the process of Appeal of Right, and acting in the capacity of Crown Attorney, did Breach the Plaintiff's Trust in the capacity of a Public Officer, by instructing or attempting to influence the presiding Judicial Officer vicariously by oral communication, did direct a Clerk of the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE to inform the Honourable Justice O'cownell who was to preside over a Hearing on my matter(07-02559) on the same day, not to read the Plaintiff's filed Appeal Court Material(07-02559), contrary to Section. 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Clerk of the court on the date in question is Mckend and court reporter on the date in question is Rudy.
[164] Mr. P. Westgate while acting in the capacity of Crown Attorney, should have know or aught to have known because it is there professional responsibility to know, that this is Legal Fraud which serves to diminish the effectiveness of the Plaintiff's Legal Rights and was effective in diminish his children's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in addition to the Applicant's. It is the Crown's Counsel(Prosecutor) business to know and it is their responsibility to be familiar with the RULES of PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and the RULES OF CIVIL and CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and the Criminal Code of Canada.
The foreseeability of damage was relatively apparent, caused by the criminal actions of prosecuting Attorneys against the Plaintiff in denying him his LEGAL RIGHTS and ACCESS TO JUSTICE.
[165] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 2nd day of October in the year 2009 at the City of Newmarket in the Regional Municipality of York, Mr. Costain and Mr. Tait did, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in the Right of Ontario, in addition to having carriage and control, while acting in the capacity of Crown's Counsel for the Plaintiff's matter(07-02559) in the process of Appeal of Right, and acting in the capacity of Crown Attorney, did fraudulently(Legal Fraud) file their RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES(07-02559), at the the Newmarket SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Registrar under the false pretense that he have completed a legal service to the Plaintiff when this was not the case for the same service; furthermore, the aforesaid was done to deny the Applicant of his Legal Rights in contravention of of Section. 131 subsection (2) and Section. 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[166] Mr. Costain and Mr. Tait should have know or aught to have known because it is there professional responsibility to know, that this is Legal Fraud which serves to diminish the effectiveness of the Plaintiff's Legal Rights and was effective in diminish his children's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in addition to the Applicant's. It is the Crown's Counsel(Prosecutor) business to know and it is their responsibility to be familiar with the RULES of PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and the RULES OF CIVIL and CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and the Criminal Code of Canada. The foreseeability of damage was relatively apparent, caused by the criminal actions of prosecuting Attorneys against the Plaintiff in denying him his LEGAL RIGHTS and ACCESS TO JUSTICE.
[167] The Applicant alleges that on or about the 27th day of August in the year 2010 at the City of Toronto in the Provence of Ontario, Ms. Joanne Stuart did, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in the Right of Ontario, in addition to having carriage and control, and acting in the capacity of Crown's Counsel for the Plaintiff's matter(C51190) in the process of Appeal, did Mislead a Judicial Officer while before the Honourable Justice Watt by misleading the same honourable Justice in securing a Court Order against the Plaintiff to move matter(C51190) to the inmate Appeal Court, under the false appearance of some prior discussion and agreement with the Plaintiff; furthermore, the Applicant alleges that Ms. Joanne Stuart advised the same court that she returned a $5.00 check for a Freedom of Information request for the Martin Report, when she in-fact had not in contravention of Section. 131 subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
[168] Furthermore, she contravene her duly sworn duty inherent in her high public office, in addition to acting contrary to the Attorney General's Directive, in addition to acting contrary to the Matin Report, and in addition to acting contrary to the Federal Prosecution Deskbook; in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness. She further cause the Information and Privacy Commission to put the blame of the missing checks squarely on the Plaintiff's shoulders, which intern cause damage to the Applicant's credibility while diminishing his integrity. This caused further delay, unnecessary aggravation of the Applicant and impeded the disclosure of the said information which is crucial for the Applicant's arguments in his matter(C51190), before the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.
[169] Mrs. Joanne Stuart should have know or aught to have known because it is her professional responsibility to know, that this is Legal Fraud which serves to deprecate the effectiveness of the Plaintiff's Legal Rights and was effective in diminishing his children's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in addition to the Applicant's. It is the Crown's Council(Prosecutor) business to know and it is their responsibility to be familiar with the RULES of PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and the RULES OF CIVIL and CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and the Criminal Code of Canada.
[170] The Applicant alleges that on or about January in the year 2010 at the City of Toronto in the Provence of Ontario, Mr. Matthew Asma did, while being employed in the service of Her-Majesty in the Right of Ontario, in addition to having carriage and control, and acting in the capacity of Crown's Counsel for the Plaintiff's matter(C51190) in the process of Appeal, did file at least 3 uncertified January 18, 2008 Transcript of evidence under the false appearance or auspices that the same document purports to be certified, when it was not the case that it was, to the COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRAR and in contravention of Section 378 subsection(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The document in question has the following disclaimer which states as follows;
"Photocopies of this transcript are not certified and have not been paid for unless they bear the signature of Fiona Downer, and Accordingly are in direct violation of Ontario regulation 587/91 Courts of Justice Act, January 1, 1990."
Furthermore, Section 4.&5. of the EVIDENCE ACTS states as follows;
4. Where an oath, affirmation or declaration is directed to be made before a person, he or she has power and authority to administer it and to certify to its having been made. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 4.
Recordings and transcripts of evidence Recording
5. (1) Despite any Act, regulation or the rules of court, a stenographic reporter, shorthand writer, stenographer or other person who is authorized to record evidence and proceedings in an action in a court or in a proceeding authorized by or under any Act may record the evidence and the proceedings by any form of shorthand or by any device for recording sound of a type approved by the Attorney General. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 5 (1).
Admissibility of transcripts
(2) Despite any Act or regulation or the rules of court, a transcript of the whole or a part of any evidence that has or proceedings that have been recorded in accordance with subsection (1) and that has or have been certified in accordance with the Act, regulation or rule of court, if any, applicable thereto and that is otherwise admissible by law is admissible in evidence whether or not the witness or any of the parties to the action or proceeding has approved the method used to record the evidence and the proceedings and whether or not he or she has read or signed the transcript. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 5 (2).
(3) The Attorney General may make regulations,
(a) requiring the certification of recordings of evidence and proceedings under subsection (1), and respecting the certification of those recordings;
(b) requiring the certification of transcripts under subsection (2), and respecting the certification of those transcripts; and
(c) prescribing the format, wording or content of certificates to be used in connection with certification under clauses (a) and (b). 2001, c. 9, Sched. B, s. 8; 2011, c. 1, Sched. 1, s. 2."
Moreover, he contravene his duly sworn duty inherent in his high public office, in addition to acting contrary to the Attorney General's Directive, in addition to acting contrary to the Matin Report, and in addition to acting contrary to the Federal Prosecution Deskbook; in causing foreseeable damage to the Applicant's life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness.
[171] Mr. Matthew Asma should have know or aught to have known because it is there professional responsible to know, that this is Legal Fraud which serves to diminish the effectiveness of the Plaintiff's Legal Rights and was effective in diminish his children's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in addition to the Applicant's. It is the Crown's Counsel(Prosecutor) business to know and it is their responsibility to be familiar with the RULES of PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT and the RULES OF CIVIL and CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and the Criminal Code of Canada. The foreseeability of damage was relatively apparent, caused by the criminal actions of prosecuting Attorneys against the Plaintiff in denying him his LEGAL RIGHTS and impeding his ACCESS TO JUSTICE.
There are no posts in this folder...
folder created: 26 October 2015 - 6:14pm — Anonymous