PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE                                                              Court file No.:  M42812

 

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

 

 

 

 

 

 

WAYNE FERRON   APPELLANT/PRIVATE PROSECUTOR

 

 

 

 

BETWEEN:

-and-

 

 

 

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES  RESPONDENT

-AND-

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK  RESPONDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Former title of preceeding was:

 

Court File No.:  M42812

 

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

 

 

WAYNE FERRON   APPELLANT/PRIVATE PROSECUTOR

 

BETWEEN:

-and-

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN  RESPONDENT

Pursuant to the direction of  the  honourable Justice Feldman  on the 29^th day of January 2014, the Former title of  the preceeding  listed above has been changed to the preceeding title below and  the same Justice indicated that the afore said would be put in her endorsement  on  MOTION FACTUM  M42812 on the 29^th day of January 2014:

 

 

Court File No.:  M42812

 

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

 

 

WAYNE FERRON   APPELLANT/PRIVATE PROSECUTOR

 

BETWEEN:

-and-

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES  RESPONDENT

-and-

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK  RESPONDENT

affidavit of service

 

 

court of appeal for ontario

 

 

B E T W E E N:

 

        WAYNE FERRON         Applicant

 

 

- and -

 

 

             HERMAJESTY THE QUEEN    Respondent

 

 

 

 

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

 

 

 

I,  Wayne FERRON(Private Prosecutor/Informant) of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY :

 

 

[2]   On the 29^th of January 2014,

[1]    All or close to all the Defendants for CV 12-716 which  repondended to the Applicant's STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV 12-716), has filed STATEMENT OF INTENT TO DEFEND which promise to strike in a vacuume without any reasonable presentation of evidence; no defendents has  filed a Motion to Strike with a returnable date to the Applicant's knowledge.

 

[2]    Not all the Defendants for CV 12-716 has repondended to the Applicant's STATEMENT OF CLAIM(CV 12-716 ).

 

[3]    It seems as though all Defendents in cluding the CROWN of  CV 12-716 , hope to defeat the Applicant's Claims or due process of law byway of depending on THE  REGIONAL  MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at BLG), to have the applicant judicially decleared a “VAXATIVE LITIGANT” without any demonstration of evidence or vetting of facts in a fair trial before an impartiontial tribunal. In short, due process of law is desired to be bypassed by the Defendents of CV 12-716.

 

 

[3]  THE  REGIONAL  MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at BLG), has failed to STRIKE or cause the dissmissal of  CV 12-716; chose to cercumvet due process of law and the vetting of factual information through a fair trial byway of having my person decleared a VEXATIVE LITIGANT covertly without reasonable notice or the presentation of evidence in a fair hearing.

 

 

[4]  The  REGIONAL  MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at BLG), filed CV 13-1060 on March 11, 2013 filed without the completion of personal service to the Applicant  nor the disclosing of material to be relied on.

 

[4]  The   CV 13-1060 is an originating process or a new civil process set in legal motion without affecting personal service on the defendants.

 

Originating Process

16.01(1) An originating process shall be served personally as provided in rule 16.02

 

 

PERSONAL SERVICE

16.02(1) Where a document is to be served personally, the service shall be made,

(a) Individual – on an individual, other than a person under disability, by leaving a copy of the document with the individual;

 

NRS LONDON REALTY LTD. v.  Glenn(1989), 67 O.R. (2d) 704 (Dist. Ct.)

In the absent of an order, service by courier is not sufficient.

 

Pursuant to NRS LONDON REALTY LTD. v.  Glenn(1989), page 6 last paragraph;

 

“(2) Secondly, because the factum and the affidavit of the defendant, Gerrie Glenn, were purportedly served on the plaintiff "by sending a copy by prepaid Purolator Courier on December 30th, 1988 to Cockburn, Foster, Cudmore & Kitely, the Solicitors for the Plaintiffs'', service by Purolator Courier in the absence of a judge's order is not yet a mode of service recognized by the rules. “

 

 

 

Pursuant to FROMOVITZ v. FROMOVITS, [1962] starting on the bottom of page 4 and continueing on the top of page 5;

 

“...per Lord Greene, M.R.:

 

In my opinion, it is beyond question that failure to serve process where service of process is required, is a failure which goes to the root of our conceptions of the proper procedure in litigation. Apart from proper ex parte proceedings, the idea that an order can validly be made against a man who has had no notification of any intention to apply for it ... has never been adopted in this country.

 

The Court found that the material on the application for the order for substitutional service had been faulty and that as a matter of fact there were probably four or five different methods by which service upon the defendant spouse could have been affected. The Court, therefore, set aside that order, the result being that the proceedings had been taken without notification to the defendant spouse...”

 

[4]  The  REGIONAL  MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at BLG), failed to serve on the applicant or respond to M42812 or file any respondent material for MOTION (M42812) on January 29, 2014 before the honourable Justice Feldman.

 

[5]   The  REGIONAL  MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at BLG), failed to attend court on January 29, 2014 and articulate her argument against the Private Prosecuting Applicant's MOTION (M42812) for extention of time for his appeal against the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. “COURT ORDER”,  despite being served byway of personal service all the materials to be relied on for MOTION (M42812), in addition to being accused by the Applicant that she mislead the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. on July 8, 2013.

 

[6]   The  REGIONAL  MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES (as represented by Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick at BLG), are crown agents or crown corporation or crown institution and there are pending Claims against the Crown byway of vicarious liability for alleged actionable wrongs commited against the Applicant by REGIONAL  MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES.

 

[7]    The Crown is the main benefactor for a successfull “VEXATIVE LITIGATION” against the Applicant, since the REGIONAL  MUNICIPALITY OF YORK and YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES are Crown institutions inaddition to staying of all the Applicants Private Prosecutions.

 

 

 

Pursuant to R. v. Thorburn, 2010 ABQB 390;

 

“[81] On the second issue, it is a well understood principle of natural justice that a person’s rights should not be affected without that person having the opportunity to make submissions to the decision-maker. This principle, the “audi alteram partem rule”, is often described as simply “the right to be heard” (for example, Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), 2002 SCC 11 at para. 75, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249) or more traditionally that “no man be condemned unheard” (Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 301 v. Montreal (City), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 793 at para. 73, 144 D.L.R. (4th) 577). Audi alteram partem also provides a person “... the right to know the case to be met”: Devon Canada Corp. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2003 ABCA 167 at para. 19, 3 Admin. L.R. (4th) 154.

 

 

[82] In this instance, the hearing judge proceeded to declare the Appellant a vexatious litigant without notice to the Appellant or asking for submissions from either party on that point. The rights of a person to take matters to the courts is a basic element of Canadian society. Martin J.A. in Bianco v. 935074 Alberta Ltd., 2008 ABCA 124 at paras. 10-11, 429 A.R. 94 endorsed the Ontario Court of Appeal’s serious characterization of impairment of this right in Kallaba v. Bylykbashi (2006), 207 O.A.C. 60 at para. 31, 265 D.L.R. (4th) 320 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 144:

 

 

... The court reasoned that a vexatious litigant order is “an extraordinary remedy

that alters a person’s right to access the courts,” and the denial of a right to appeal

such an order “could result in fundamental unfairness”: para. 31. [Emphasis added.]

 

 

 

[8]    The Ms. Krick for the Crown, failed to serve, and failed to file a RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M43059) or any other court material for MOTION M43059 before the honourable Justice Feldman on January 30, 2014.

 

[9]  On January 30, 2014, the Private Prosecutor didnot request an adjournment, since he had served and field NOTICE, FACTUM, BOOK OF AUTHORITY, MOTION RECORD, etc...

 

[10] On January 30, 2014, the Crown didnot request an adjournment, eventhough  Ms. Krick for the Crown, failed to serve and file a RESPONDENT MOTION RECORD(M43059) or any other court material for MOTION M43059 before the honourable Justice Feldman on January 30, 2014.

 

[2]   On the 30^th of January 2014, while before the honourable Justice Feldman on COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO matter M43059, Ms. Krick(CROWN COUNSEL) asserted in open court or counseled Justice Feldman's court that it would not be in violation of  the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order if Wayne Ferron was to attend and partisopate in the February 28, 2014 STATUS COURT MOTION(C55532). Pursuant to …...... notice of motion, there would be a STATUS COURT MOTION(C55532) on  February 28, 2014.

 

[2]   On the 30^th of January 2014,  Ms. Krick(CROWN COUNSEL) made her assertion or counseled the COURT of Ms. Feldman as a rebuttal argument to Wayne Ferron(Private Prosecutor) respectful request for Ms. Feldman's COURT  to stay all of Wayne Ferron's matters in accordance with the Honourable Justice I. Andre J. court order release on  July 8^th, 2013 and her preceived delivered JUDGEMENT from the bench of staying M43059.  Ms. Krick(CROWN COUNSEL) made in contravention of Section 22. of the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, which states as follows;

 

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

Idem

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

 

[2]    So on the 28^th of January 2014, Wayne Ferron(Private Prosecutor) while acting on the aforementioned incestance of Ms. Krick(for the Crown) attended STATUS COURT MOTION(C55532), which was before the honourable Justice Watt in contravention of Section 127 of the  CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, which states as follows;

Disobeying order of court

127. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

 

[2]   On the 28^th of January 2014, at the STATUS COURT MOTION(C55532)

 

[1]   On the 12^th of February, I left with the REGISTRAR a copy of “REQUESITION TO CROSS-EXAMINE  the of AFFIDAVIT OF  OF BRADBURY  FERRON V. R.; court file No. 07-22259(S.C.J.) Ms. Kathryn E Kirkpatrick filed with the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(CENTRAL WEST REGION)-REGISTRA for the July 8, 2013 VEXATIVE APPLICATION for the purposes of assisting the court in its adjudication”;

 

for filing. The COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRAR was being abusive, so I inadvertantly filed the above document or left it to be filed before the filing of my AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE.

 

[2]   On the 12^th of January 2014 at …................. p.m., I served upon HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of ONTARIO(as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario), the following documents:

1.   a copy of MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT FOR EXTENSION OF TIME(M42812);

2.   a copy of REQUESITION FOR MS. DEBORAH KRICK...(M42812);

3.   a copy of REQUESITION FOR COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO FILE C56817...(M42812);

4.   a copy of REQUESITION FOR Mr. Rafal Szymanski...(M42812);

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforemention 4 documents with …........................................... an employee at the MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Provincial), who excepts service on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO at the following location;

 

The Attorney General of Ontario

Constitutional Law Branch

4th floor

720 Bay Street

Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1

 

fax: 416 326 4015

 

AND TO:

 

The Attorney General of Canada

Constitutional Law Branch

Suite 3400, Exchange Tower

Box 36, First Canadian Place

Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6

 

fax: 416 973 3004

 

 

 

 

[2]   On the 23^rd of January 2014 at …................. p.m., I served upon YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES and the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK(as represented by BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), the following documents:

1.   a copy of MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT FOR EXTENSION OF TIME(M42812);

2.   a copy of REQUESITION FOR MS. DEBORAH KRICK...(M42812);

3.   a copy of REQUESITION FOR COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO FILE C56817...(M42812);

4.   a copy of REQUESITION FOR Mr. Rafal Szymanski...(M42812);

by leaving a signed copy of each of the aforemention 4 documents with …............................. an employee at BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP(BLG)), who excepts legal service on behalf of BLG and Kathryn E. Kirkpatrick (a BLG Lawyer for the said defendant) at the folowing location;

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street W

Toronto, ON, Canada  M5H 3Y4

T 416.367.6000

F 416.367.6749

blg.com

Counsel for Defendants;

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK;

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES

 

Counsel: Kathryn E Kirkpatrick(BLG File No.:016995.000102 )

T  416.367.6092

F  416.361.2769

cfotopoulos@blg.com  

 

 

 

Sworn before me at the City of Toronto in the Province of Ontario, on the  23rd day of January 2014.			Wayne Ferron                                    (Private Prosecutor/Informant)
Commissioner for Taking Affidavits (or as may be)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of which is respectfully submitted.

 

 

        _____________________________

Wayne FERRON(Informant)

 

1-18 Earlscourt Ave. Toronto,

 ON,  Postal Code M6E 4A6

Tel: 416 420 1353,

Email: wayneferron@gmail.com

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

 

 

 

TO:  

        The Clerk of the Court--Registrar

                COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Osgoode Hall

130 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5

Tel:           416 327 5020

Fax:          416 327 6032

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

 

WAYNE FERRON -versus- HER-MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Court file No.: M 42812

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO   PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT Osgoode Hall 130 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5   _________________________________ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FOR MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME _________________________________ Wayne FERRON 1-18 Earlscourt Ave. Toronto, ON, M6E 4A6 Tel: 416 420 1353, Email: wayneferron@gmail.com TAKE NOTICE: I JUST RECENTLY CAME OFF THE STREETS OF TORONTO AS LIVING AS A VAGABOND. MY RECIDENCE FLOODS AND IS INFECTED WITH BLACK MOLD; I AM FORCED TO LIVE INHUMAINLY AND EXPECTED TO BRING MY DAUGHTER WHOM I HAVE FULL CUSTODY FOR, TO LIVE THERE. I am left to die in the said conditions by ONTARIO-WORKS. PLEASE SEND ANY LEGAL SERVICE  MATERIAL BY REGISTERED MAIL, TO BE PICKED UP AT THE POST OFFICE; THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT  MATERIAL SERVED AT THE ABOVE ADRESS BY REGULAR MAIL WILL BE RELAYED TO MY PERSON, IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL POST BOX CONTENTS BEING EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS. I AM NOT HOME IN THE DAY TIME, I MOSTLY ONLY SLEEP AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.