criminalbydesign.files.wordpress.com€¦ · web viewno legal rights in ontario, no human rights...

Court file No.: ….................Obstructing justice: 139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding, (2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence…

THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA(ON APPEAL FROM Adjudicator Vice-Chair Muir decision(2014-19681-I) and THE

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO-REGISTRAR (SANDRA THEROULDE) DECISION to refuse (DENIED APPEAL byway of leave), and not file the Applicant’s NOTICE OF APPEAL

FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL even though all the respondents were given lawful legal service on 11/06/2015. THE DEPUTY CLERK, refuse the filing of the said appeal matter,

then called security (police officer badge# 90456 ) to have the Appellant removed for lawful service, without judicial input or lawful determination of a

Judge of competent jurisdiction on 11/06/2015)

B E T W E E N:

WAYNE FERRON Applicant

- and -Respondent

Ministry of the Attorney General(Court Service Division)

JOHN GERRETSENSANDRA THEROULDE

GAIL HUGH DESIREE VICERAL

___________________________________________

NOTICE OF APPLICATIONFOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

___________________________________________

(WAYNE FERRON, unrepresented APPELLANT)(section of the Act or these Rules 25A)

Do I have any LEGAL or HUMAN rights in Ontario? page 1HRTO PREAMBLE: “...public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination that is contrary to law…”

Court file No.: …......................... page 2

TAKE NOTICE: that Wayne Ferron hereby applies for leave to

appeal to the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, pursuant to Rule 23 and

Rule 25A, from the judgment of THE DEPUTY CLERK, refusing the

filing of the said appeal matter, then calling security (police officer

badge# 90456 ) to have the Appellant removed for lawful service,

without judicial input or lawful determination of a Judge of competent

jurisdiction on 11/06/2015)

the HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO and file number

HRTO FILE NO.: 2014-19681-I made on the 7th day of October,

A.D. 2015, and for REVIEW OF , the Honourable Vice-Chair David

Muir, and Richard Hennessy decision (HRTO-REGISTRAR) or any fur-

ther or other order that the Court may deem appropriate;

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that this application for leave is

made on the following grounds:

THE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ARE:

1.) NO LEGAL RIGHTS IN ONTARIO, NO HUMAN RIGHTS IN

ONTARIO, NO APPEAL ROUTE OR REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

like other normal CANADIANS;

“[2] THE COURT PROHIBITS Wayne Ferron either directly or indirectly, from instituting any proceeding or continuing any proceedings previously instituted in any court in Ontario, except until such time

Pursuant to Rule 6, Rule 23, Rule 25A, and Rule 61 of RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA /2002-156 (File Number: 2012-12585-I, Citation: 2012 HRTO 1544)


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

(honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on July 8th, 2013)2.) Public Importance: WITHHOLDING or DENIAL of EQUAL

“COURT SERVICES,”

3.) The decision contradicts HRTO case Law(Nagy Faky Riad -and-

Superior Court of Justice, 2012 HRTO 1462, File Number: 2011-

08103-I).

4.) The HRTO-Registrar did not send the decision in accordance with

the adjudicator’s order (Vice-Chair David Muir). In short, the RESPON-

DENTS and HRTO-REGISTRAR acted contrary to Vice-Chair

David Muir orders,

5.) The NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS contains one or more

false premise, and forms the basis for Vice-Chair David Muir adjudi-

cation,



6.) There was no reference to and there does not seem to be any

review of the the requested response by the REGIGISTRAR,

7.) The final decision was made before a final decision to a disclosure

request involving relevant information for the same HRTO

matter(deemed refusal status- PA15-260),

8.) A Justice or adjudicator cannot be a Judge in his own cause ,

9.) The Honourable Justice appears to be inconsistent with Section

2(e) of the BILL OF RIGHTS which asserts

“...the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principle of fundamental justice for the determination of his right and obligation;”

10.) Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise

and this Honourable Court may permit



REMEDY:1. Hearing to resolve legal issues;

2. Official response from the RESPONDENTS;

An order to DISCLOSE INFORMATION proving that one or more of

the following respondents is a judicial officer or acted in the capac-

ity of a judicial officer within the context of the HUMAN RIGHTS

COMPLAINT: JOHN GERRETSEN, SANDRA THEROULDE, GAIL

HUGH, or DESIREE VICERAL;



3. written articulated reasons of why there is no JURISDICTION,

and furthermore is it because discrimination was left blank in

HRTO FORM 1 ( Nagy Faky Riad -and- Superior Court of

Justice, Hilda Litkee and Gerri Wyatt, 2012 HRTO 1462, File

Number: 2011-08103-I , Adjudicator: David Muir )?

4. written articulated reasons of why the Applicant’s RESPONSE TO

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS(2014-19 681 -I), was not

referred to or mentioned in the reasons for judgement or

FINAL JUDGEMENT (2014-19 681 -I) ?

5. written articulated reasons of why HRTO-TRIBUNAL has not

honoured nor completed the Applicant’s filed FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION REQUEST(201 4 -19 681 -I ET AL) , but has

allowed it to be in a state of Appeal under the state of “DEEMED

REFUSAL- PA15-260”?

6. written articulated reasons of why the HRTO-Registry did not send

a NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION 201 4 -19 681 -I ?

7. an order for the HRTO-Registrar, to accept a new completed

FORM 1 with the discrimination section filled out and not left

blank, so that the matter can proceed to trial under due process of

law.Pursuant to Rule 6, Rule 23, Rule 25A, and Rule 61 of RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA /2002-156

(File Number: 2012-12585-I, Citation: 2012 HRTO 1544)


8. an order to honour and complete the Applicant’s FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION REQUEST(2014-19 681 -I ET AL) , so that he may

know his case and is enabled to give full answer to the honourable

COURT.

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

SPECIAL REQUEST for the ENFORCEMENT of THE RULE OF LAW:

Given that all the Applicant's legal rights and freedoms, in addition to his ability

to access justice in the Provence of ONTARO has all been taken away byway of

Ms. K. Kirkpatrick's fraudulently procurement of the Honourable Justice I.

Andre J. “COURT ORDER”(CV 13-1060). The aforementioned was affected

while Ms. K. Kirkpatrick(an employee of BLG acting as legal counsel for YORK

REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES ET AL), acting in conjunction with her partner the

Crown to defeat the course of justice or impeding due process of law for the

Applicant's private prosecution under Section 504 and 507.1 of the CRIMINAL

CODE OF CANADA.



Not only does the Applicant have no legal rights and freedoms in ONTARIO; but

also, no impartial reasonable legal means to access justice in open court or

to fight for his basic human needs or his children's rights given by the

INTERNATIONAL COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, to which the

Provincial and Federal Government have signed and promised to provide to all

citizens. It makes no difference to the Applicant's opponent's, that his life and

wellbeing is in jeopardy or that the RULE OF LAW is not being affected, or the

notion of PARAMOUNTCY is not observed. The Applicant respectfully make the

following URGENT REQUEST;

1. for Mr. Rafal Szymanski who represent or is legal counsel of Officer Pekeski (2261) et al, to return forthwith the Private Prosecutor’s personal property(most needed is identification cards in his wallet to see a Doctor) he stole or confiscated and failed to place them into evidence in addition to failing to charge the applicant for any contravention of the CRIMINAL CODE or contravention of any bylaws of the city of MISSISSAUGA or the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY of Peel. Officer Pekeski(2261) in conjunction with his partner filed false Police Reports and failed to attend court when summon to give evidence to assist the court in a criminal matter. The Applicant's property should be returned in court and checked and confirmed for all items improperly taken, in addition to a common police procedural signing off on the items in question as they are returned and are accounted for. The Applicant placed before Justice Jeannie I. Anand an information against Ms. Joanne Stuart, but he was directed to Civil Court to resolve the issue of theft of property while she declined the count of theft in the same information;

2. for Mr. Rafal Szymanski who represent or is legal counsel for the REGION OF PEEL et al to return the two checks for the FREEDOM OF



INFORMATION REQUEST the REGION OF PEEL and it's subordinate did not affect;

3. any other restitution, resolution, or remedy this honourable court may find within the interest of justice;

PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OR PUBLIC GOOD:

1. The maintenance, observance, and securing of the notion of PARAMOUNTCY

for order, uniformity, and consistency in the LEGAL SYSTEM;

2. The determination and affirming of the right to lawfully protect his HUMAN

RIGHTS, the right to lawfully protect his CIVIL RIGHTS, the right to protect THE

WELL BEING OF HIS CHILDREN, the right to access justice in ONTARIO and

for the determination of ones rights and freedoms;

3. A deterrent for malicious prosecution, so the trust and confidence of the

public in the ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE will be maintained in addition to a

just and humane society in accordance with the MARTIN REPORT;

4. Insurance and importance of EQULITY IN LAW in accordance with Section

15(1) of the CHARTER;



5. Insurance and importance of DUE PROCESS OF LAW in accordance with

Section 1(b), and Section 2(e) or the BILL OF RIGHTS, and Section

482(1) and Section 507.1 of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA;

6. The Applicant seeks access to justice in accordance with Section 504 of

the Criminal Code of Canada, and Section 15 of the CHARTER OF RIGHTS

AND FREEDOM without artificial created impediments, and regardless of the

allege accuse status, creed, or institutional association;

7. The Applicant seeks the enforcement of the RULE OF LAW in accordance

with the good of the public and the maintenance of a just and humain

Canadian society THAT HAS CONFIDENCE AND TRUST IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM;

8. The Applicant seeks to insure that the will of parliament is respected

and followed for Section 504, Section 507.1, Section 540, and Section

482 of the Criminal Code of Canada;

9. The Applicant seeks for all to be subject to the law in addition to no one

being above the law or appearing to be immune to the enforcement of the

RULE OF LAW;

10. The Applicant seeks fair and equal Application and enforcement

of the Criminal Code of Canada for all Canadians regardless of the allege

accuse status, creed, or institutional association;

11. Any other public good this honourable court may find RELLEVANT.



Pursuant to ONTARIO CIVIL PRACTICE;

“

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

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

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



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

2013 under the tittle APPENDIX “A”;

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

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

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

[4] THIS COURT ORDERS that any service on the Attorney General that directed by RSJ or her designee referred to in paragraph 3 of this Order shall only be given by registered mail addressed and sent as follows:



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

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

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

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

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



All of which is respectfully submitted.

Dated at the city of TORONTO, in the province of Ontario, on this Friday, May 26, 2023. SIGNED BY

____________________________ Applicant

Wayne FERRONHOMELESS VAGABOND

ST. SIMOND’S HOMELESS SHELTERBED#3 – 525Bloor Street East,

Toronto, Ontario, M4W [email protected]

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

TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RESIDENCE FLOODS AND IS INFECTED WITH BLACK MOLD; I AM FORCED TO LIVE INHUMAINLY AND EXPECTED TO BRING MY DAUGHTER WHOM I HAVE FULL CUSTODY FOR, TO LIVE THERE. I am left to die in the said conditions by ONTARIO-WORKS. PLEASE SEND ANY LEGAL SERVICE MATERIAL BY REGISTERED MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY REGULAR MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAYTIME, I MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

TO: THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA - REGISTRAR301 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0J1(613) 995-4330



AND TO:John GerretsenThe Attorney General of Ontarioth floor720 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario M5G 2K1fax: 416 326 4015

AND TO:Gail HughMINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GENERALSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE361 University Queen AvenueToronto, Ontario, M5G 1T3Tel: 416 327 5565Fax: 416 327 5886

AND TO:Sandra Theroulde

Osgoode Hall130 Queen Street WestToronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5Tel: 416 327 5020Fax: 416 327 6032

AND TO:Desiree Viceral

Osgoode Hall130 Queen Street WestToronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5Tel: 416 327 5020Fax: 416 327 6032


THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADAWAYNE FERRON -versus- JOHN GERRETSEN et al. Court file No.: …...........

THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT

301 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0J1

(613) 995-4330

NOTICE OF APPLICATIONFOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

HRTO FILE NO.: 2012 – 12585-I

Wayne FerronHOMELESS VAGOBOND

ST. SIMON’S HOMELESS SHELTER525 BLOOR ST. EAST,

TORONTO, ON, M4W [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

criminalbydesign.files.wordpress.com€¦ · web viewno legal rights in ontario, no human rights...

Documents