Author Information
DOC-X VOLUME IV: APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION 4.) BIAS or REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS
Folder Contents
Information
Nos.: C51190
court of appeal for ontario
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent
-
and -
WAYNE FERRON Applicant
DOC-X
VOLUME IV
APPLICATION RECORD FOR
APPLICATION
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
4.) BIAS or REASONABLE
APPREHENSION OF BIAS
4.) BIAS or
REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS:
[549] The following will serve to demonstrate biasing in the
process, which serve to impede are deny the Applicant access to Justice. The Applicant fail to see the possibility of
a fair trial, the possibIlity of an effective defence or even the possibility
of an equitable appellate process in the matter before the court in accordance
with the Charter. Too much has been purposefully done to taint and colour the
Judicial process.
Please see DOC XI - APPLICANT’S AFFIDAVIT (Wayne FERRON).
COMPLAINANT’S/CREDIBILITY:
[550] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice
Healey;
“[2] The evidence took four days of trial time to complete. The
appellant was self-represented during the trial. Justice Kenkel found that the independent civilian witness to Mr.
Ferron's erratic driving on the night of his arrest was a credible witness who gave his evidence in a forthright manner and who was responsive in
cross-examination. He found the evidence of the officers who attended at the scene on the night Mr. Ferron was arrested
to be consistent on all of the central points. In contrast Justice Kenkel
noted that Mr. Ferron could give no credible explanation for the erratic
driving observed by the witness, had no memory of his physical struggle with
the police, and gave no credible explanation for his lack of memory. Justice
Kenkel found that the appellant's lack of memory on the central points
detracted substantially from the credibility and reliability of all of his
evidence. With respect to the other events connected to the night of his
arrest, Justice Kenkel found the
appellant's recollection to be "very faulty". Justice Kenkel's
assessment of the Appellant's testimony was summed up in the following paragraph
of his Reasons for Judgment: "Concerning Mr. Ferron's lack of recollection
of the central events and his flawed perception and irrational behaviour at
other times I find he is neither a credible nor a reliable witness. His evidence is illogical and contradicted
by external credible evidence. Considering all of the evidence at trial as a
whole I find I must reject Mr. Ferron's testimony completely."
(Honourable Justice Healey, SUPERIOR
COURT OF JUSTICE , RULING for
Information No.: 07-02559)
Please see under
the sub heading 2.) EVIDENCE, SYSTEMIC RACISM/RACIAL PROFILING in APPLICATION RECORD FOR APPLICATION FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION for
other factual evidence concerning the Complainant.
[551] Pursuant to Complainant’s Cr-ex;
“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?
A. No I was not.
Q. Not on Woodbine.
A. No I was not.
Q. Not on Church?
A. No I was not.
Q. Deering (ph), Natania?
A. No.
Q. Okay. When you were travelling on the Queensway as
you were approaching Boyer Sideroad, here was a gray Grand Prix that passed
you?
A. Yes
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.
Q. They were moving faster than yourself but you don’t
if they were speeding?
A. No I did not.
Q. But yes you
know that I was speeding?
A. Yes.
Q. You can guess my speed but you can’t guess your
speed?
A. If you would like I would take a guess...
Q. No it is okay.
A. They were exceeding
the speed.
Q. Did they have their red emergency watch lights on?
Emergency lights?
A. Not when they pulled up behind me.
Q. No when they passed you did they have it on?
A. They would be past me so I wouldn’t be able to see
but when they pulled up behind me they did not have it on.
{...}
Q. Okay. While you are on the cell phone with
the 9-1-1 dispatcher, you made a statement, van speeding complainant doing 65 kilometres and can’t keep up with the
van. This is on Church Street. Do you know what the speed limit is on Church
Street?
A. No I do not.
Q. Actually you do.
A. THE COURT: Ask him questions and don’t argue with the witness, just ask him questions.
Q. Okay well I can’t...
A. It is either 40 or 50 kilometres.
Q. It is 60
kilometres per hour, it is at either end. One is at Woodbine, one is at Church
- I walked it. One is at Church and the Queensway, it is 50 kilometres per hour.
THE COURT: yes.
Q. You made a statement somewhere that it was
50 kilometres per hour but anyways.
A. Okay.
Q. So my question is was 65 in a 50 kilometre per our zone, does that constitute speeding?
A. Does
to me.
Q. So what about your statement before
earlier in the Court where you said you weren’t speeding that day?
A. That I was speeding, I think the comment
here that I am reading if I stand to be corrected, I was indicating that you were doing 65 kilometres per hour and can’t
keep up.
Q. How would
know that I am doing exactly 65 Kilometres an hour?
A.That would be a guesstimate - if I was
doing 50 or trying to pursue and you were pulling away, I would make an assumption, it
is an assumption.
{...}
Q. Yes his statement, he has
a copy of that.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Q. Statement or summary of witness
account.
THE COURT: First point?
Q. Yes you say we were travelling between 80
and 90 kilometres per hour when I noticed that a vehicle was not
staying within the northbound lane. What is the speed limit on
Woodbine?
A. Eighty.
Q. Eighty so if you were going between eighty
and ninety and between means not including eighty - right and
not including ninety but between that does that constitute
speeding?
A. By
the law it does yes.
Q. Okay well you stated earlier in the Court
you said you were not speeding at all that night?
A. Then I
have contradicted myself.
(Complainant’s Cr-ex, May 9, 2008 Trial
Transcript for 07-02559, page 9-22)
[552] Pursuant to the Complainant;
27 March 2007;
“We were traveling between 80 and 90 kms per hour when I noticed
that the vehicle was not staying
within the north bound lane and was
periodically entering into the south bound lane and making rapid corrections to
bring the vehicle back into northbound lane”
(un-signed VIA
E-MAIL, STATEMENT or SUMMARY of
WITNESS ACCOUNT)
[553] Pursuant to 9-1-1 Dispatch log;
“23:44
Mar 27 DSP1 5461 CM12 COMP STILL FOLLOWING FROM 100 YARDS BACK
23:44
Mar 27 DSP1 5461 CM12 VAN SPEEDING, COMP DOING 65 KMS & CANT KEEP UP WITH THE VAN
23:45
Mar 27 DSP1 5461 CM12 VAN TURNING NB ON THE QUEENSWAY N”
(Mess, COM 12,
YORK REGIONAL POLICE, FOR: 1079, CASE: 7-70285, Mar 27 911, page 2)
[554] Pursuant to the Complainant;
“CALLER: And I not allowed to break
the law here, but I’m doing 65 kilometres and I can’t keep up with him in a 50.”
(Transcript of
Recording of 911 call of Geoffrey Fardy, 07Mar27, page 7, line 8-11)
[555] Recall from the Complainant’s May 9, cross
examination;
“Q. So what about your statement before
earlier in the Court where you said you weren’t speeding that day?
A. That I was speeding, I think the comment
here that I am reading if I stand to be corrected, I was indicating that you were doing 65 kilometres per hour and can’t
keep up.
Q. How would
know that I am doing exactly 65 Kilometres an hour?
A.That would be a guesstimate - if I was
doing 50 or trying to pursue and you were pulling away, I would make an assumption, it
is an assumption.”
[556] 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. He even
justifies it with an explanation. Furthermore, he admits to the said operator
that he was breaking the law. The only concern her is the inference of
discriminatory practices of the Application of the law in violation of Section
15 of the Charter and Section 1. of the Human Rights Act. In-fact the over
riding theme in the matter before the court is the discriminatory in the
Application of the Code and the improper use of very powerful discretional
powers to foster inequality in he legal system.
[557] Pursuant to the 9-1-1 Transcription;
“CALLER: No, not at all, but I’m following the tire marks, I’m sure he’s the
only one ahead of me, but I’m in a fairly rural area right now.
OPERATOR: Yeah.
CALLER: I’m
not comfortable with where I am, but ....
OPERATOR: Okay, well, just hang tight for me for a minute, okay?
CALLER: Yeah,
no I’m good.
OPERATOR: And you’re still - have you hit Boyers Road yet?
CALLER: I’m
just coming up to it, and again, I’m
following his tire marks, they’re pretty good. I’ve got a set of lights behind
me. I’m going to put my four-ways on.
OPERATOR: Yeah.
CALLER: Okay,
I’ve got a - I’m almost sure that’s him
sitting up there at Boyers.
OPERATOR: Okay.
CALLER: But
that officer’s got to put the (inaudible) on and go.
OPERATOR: Okay. keep me updated, okay? Do you have an officer behind you did
you say?
CALLER: I
suspect it is.
OPERATOR: Okay.
CALLER: Tell
him to give me some lights or something.
OPERATOR: Okay, well I can’t....
CALLER: No?
OPERATOR: They have to do what - you know.
CALLER: Okay,
we’re coming up to Boyer, and I don’t know if he made a left or a right.
OPERATOR: Okay, do you - you don’t see the van right now?
CALLER: No,
I don’t, but I’m hoping he’s going to go
through a puddle here and I’ll be able to tell you which way he went. sorry
- I saw lights go up the hill here. Okay, I’ve got the officer here.
OPERATOR: Okay, you go ahead and speak with him.
CALLER: Oh,
it’s not the officer, it was a Grand Prix.
OPERATOR: Oh, it’s not the officer?
CALLER: No.
It
was a Grand Prix.
OPERATOR: It’s a Grand Prix? That’s a plain
clothes officer probably.
CALLER: Is
it?
OPERATOR: Yes.
CALLER: A
grey Grand Prix?
OPERATOR: Hold on for a second, I’m just confirming that.
CALLER: He’s
flying.”
(Transcription
of the Recording of 9-1-1 call to YRP by complainant; page 10& 11, starting
at line 14)
[558] TAKE NOTICE: The Complainant (COMP) 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.
[559] This is the said log which was used to justify adding
the new charge in a new Information
07-02559 of dangerous driving. Was the Law being discriminatory and is it
being apply equally among members of the collective. Furthermore, the
Complainant reached the location of the investigative stop and arrest of the
Applicant about 1 minute apart.
[560] The Applicant was stopped by D303 (DC officers) at
about 23:52 at Deer Park/ E of Metro and the Complainant reach the said
location at 23:53 despite the fact that he Stop and waited on The QueensWay
with his four-way flashers on for an un-given period of time in accordance with
the York Regional Police Services
911 Log.
[561] Pursuant to Honourable Justice
Kenkel;
“After that he led the person
away from his
residence explaining,
"You don't want to bring a
predator to the nest." He said he was driving
towards Snake Island Ferry Terminal as he knew
there was a video camera there. He pulled over for
the police when he saw the flashing lights on the
unmarked car. One of the officer's showed him a
badge. He says one of the officer's
called him "an
asshole and a crack
head." To avoid confrontation
he chose not to speak with
the officers. He
provided his licence and insurance when requested.
He didn't ,respond to other police questions as he
felt they were degrading. He
stated that he felt
intimidated and harassed. When an officer told him
he would have to wait he put his ball cap over his
face and leaned back to rest. Mr.
Ferron recalls
then an officer slapped the
baseball cap off his
head. At that point Mr. Ferron said the fact
that
his cap was knocked off caused him to, "Fear for my
life." Mr. Ferron testified
that he exited his
vehicle when told to do so by
Constable Monk.
{...}
I should mention that all of
these observations
regarding the accused's odd
and irrational
behaviour stand in contrast
to the thoughtful and
gentle man who in a very
thorough way presented his
own case during this trial.
Considering all of the evidence as a whole I find
that the Crown has proved this count beyond a
reasonable doubt. “
(Honourable Justice Kenkel, September
26, 2008, REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT, page 9-15)
PROSECUTOR IS BOUND BY HIGH OFFICE:
[562] The following quote is concerning the (ABUSE OF
PROCESS APPLICATION (07-02559)(O.C.J.)), against Ms. Goodier, returnable on
June 17, 2008; Ms. Stewart was wrongly referring to it as a disclosure
Application.
“(iv)
June 17, 2008
Your matter was brought forward (early) to June 17, 2008 to
re-address
disclosure concerns that you raised on
April 28, 2008. First you wanted to resolve the
discrepancy between the explanation you received regarding the comment “oh he
is lost alright, just in a very unique way” and the disclosure you had
received in the form of dispatch logs (the timing in the logs contradicted the
explanation previously given). Second, you wanted to address the destroyed
videotape of the courthouse cells that would have shown you having a
conversation with an officer. You claim that you had asked this female officer
if you could take a drug test and she told you that was not possible. The
videotape would not have recorded the audio of that conversation. It was again
confirmed that this evidence was not available and was not relevant. The judge
asked the Crown to obtain the security logs from the courthouse cells to
address your other concern that you wanted the video to address, i.e. the fact
that you had been shackled when other prisoners had not been shackled. Third,
you raised the fact that the impaired driving charge was not formally withdrawn
until January 18, 2008 and that it should have been as of March 30, 2007. You
provided a partial transcript of March 30, 2007 appearance that indicated the
issue of withdrawal was raised at that appearance but it was unclear what had
occurred. The trial judge reviewed the fact that this was not relevant to the
proceedings as that charge had been withdrawn. He nonetheless indicated that
you could raise this issue again once you had the complete transcript of that
appearance. It does not appear that you brought the completed transcript to the
Court’s attention on any subsequent appearance at trial. Fourth, you further
asked for clarification about who
searched your vehicle and were shown, in the disclosure you had already
received, where it indicated that the search was done by Constable Monk.
See Transcript of Proceedings, dated June 17, 2008”
(Joanne Stuart, Crown’s response Page 7 of 22)
[563] Pursuant to the Applicant;
“This Application was an ABUSE OF PROCESS
APPLICATION. My very first Application changed into a section 24(2) for
Stay Application without my permission. It was not a disclosure
Application.
I wrote the crown and detailed the falsehoods in her
assertions to the court on behalf or speaking for the officer in-charge. Before
this, I gave her photo copies of parts of Transcripts showing where she
knowingly or unknowingly mislead the Administration of Justice. Yet, she didn't
remedy the situation or even answer my letter.
So I file an Abuse of Process Application in which I didn't ask for anything except that
the Court recognized that the aforesaid actions at issue happened. I didn't ask
for any money, I did not ask for anyone to be punished, I did not even asked
for the charges in the case to be dismiss. I only asked that the presiding
justice recognize and take note of the actionable wrong being committed.”
(Wayne Ferron, Applicant, RESPONSE TO
CROWN’S RESPONSE REGARDING
TRANSCRIPTS
AND DISCLOSURE page 42)
[564] Pursuant to a
May 16, 2008 letter sent to Crown Counsel (Ms. Goodier) at the Lower Court;
“Pleases
be advised that I am in receipt of your disclosure:
• The definitions of the 911 acronyms and YRP's use of force policies on
the 28th of
April, 2008 after the Application Hearing.
• Not the MSDS, but a substitute typed information page containing
information concerning OC spray. I call it "MSDS sub". This
substitute discloser was given to me on 9th of May, 2008 at about 9:30 am
during trial.
• Not the complete voice log of the dispatch dialog. But a 35 min
recording of mainly
unit 3135 and dispatch. The voice log of the dispatch dialog should be
at lease 62 mins not 35 mins. This partial discloser was given to me on 9th of
May, 2008 at about 9:30 am during trial. I wish to address the abuse of process
and the destruction of evidence in Court in front of the presiding Justice in
advance of the date set for continuation of my trial on a date of the courts
choosing, preferable a friday. Day 56 of the court house security tape
contained:
• proof of me with my hands shackled with handcuffs behind my back in
the holding cell.
• proof of me asking an officer who introduced herself as counselor for
a drug test to prove my innocence. To which she replied" I cannot do
thaf', and I intern replied, "the police are not interested in the
truth". .
• the police trying to violate my right to counsel, when I stated to
them that I would like to speak to my lawyer first before finger printing and
photo graphing.
The ambiguity and uncertainty generated by the Crown, when the
prosecutor repeatedly states in court on the record in hearings that the charge
for Operate a Motor Vehicle while ability Impaired (s. 253(a) c.c.) has been
withdrawn. However; at the YRP this charge is show-en as pending the trial
date.
The omission and disinformation perpetrated on me and the courts by the
crown,
namely: .
• The court encouraged the crown to disclosed to me the dispatch log. I
took this to mean the complete dispatch log. I received only apart of the log.
• crown said in speaking for Mr. Broughton who was on business in
Haliburton, that the statement "Ospl, OH HE'S LOST ALL RIGHT •.•.JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE
WAY" was refering to officer Monk (#1399), while he was north of HWY 9.
The court repeated this in it's statement "on that
one I could see where
that might be a problem. They - 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?" This is found on page 6 of the application
transcript.
• the log that was given to me has no communication of this event
occurring. Furthermore I can prove that the matter of officer Monk being lost
north of HWY 9 is impossible; since this would put him in two different place
at the same time.
• Officer Brouton (#1079) denied ever stating that officer Monk (#1399)
was ever lost. I am confuse. Is officer Broughton telling the truth or is the
crown telling the truth?
I still do not have
answerers to my original questions and concerns, namely:
• Concerning this matter at 00:27 Mar 28,2007 in the Dispatch Disclosure
DP1 made a statement "OH HE'S
LOST ALL RIGHT .... JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY" in response to
a missing statement made correlating to this statement. The missing statement
is probably within this interval (00:26 Mar 28 to 00:27 Mar 28) but not
including the upper and lower bounds.
• Please
provide to the defence a copy of this missing statement and the reason for its
deletion.
• Please
provide to the defence the reason or reasons for this statement and who it is
in reference to.
• Please
provide the complete dispatch voice log of my matter (07-70285).”
(May
16, 2008 letter sent to Crown Counsel (Ms. Goodier) at the Lower Court)
[565] Pursuant to the
Applicant’s ABUSE OF PROCESS APPLICATION at the lower Courts;
“ TO THE RESPONDENT
Crown
Miss Cheryl Goodier,
Assistant crown Attorney
Crown Attorney’s
Office, Regional Municipality of York
50 Eagle Street West,
Newmarket, ON, L3Y 6B1
Tel: (905) 853 -
4800, Fax: (905) 853 - 4849
{...}
APPLICATION
I wish to address the abuse of process and the destruction of
evidence in Court in front of the presiding Justice on the 17th day of June 2008, in Courtroom 303 at 9:30 a.m., at 50 Eagle Street West, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6B in advance of the date set for continuation
of the trial on the 23th day of June 2008, in Courtroom 203 at 9:30 a.m., at 50 Eagle Street West, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6B
1.The applicant makes
application for:
I still do not have
answers to my original questions and concerns, namely:
•
Concerning
this matter at 00:27 Mar 28, 2007 in the
Dispatch Disclosure DP1 made a statement “OH
HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT....JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY” in response to a missing statement made
correlating to this statement. The
missing statement is probably within this interval (00:26 Mar 28 to 00:27 Mar
28) but not including the upper and lower bounds.
•
Please
provide to the defence a copy of this missing statement and the reason for its
deletion.
•
Please
provide to the defence the reason or reasons for this statement and who it is
in reference to.
•
Please
provide to the defence the complete dispatch voice log of my matter (07-02559 and
07-02500) asper the Court’s encouragement to the Crown, to disclose this
material to the defence.
•
All these question could be answered and the matter
settled if a signed affidavit from the Dispatcher who made the statement “OH
HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT....JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY” could be obtained. It should
state what statement the statement in question is in response to, who the
statement in question is referring to and to whom the statement is made ?
•
The
Crown’s credibility is in question. The omission and disinformation perpetrated
on me and the courts by the crown. Officer Brouton (#1079) denied ever stating
that officer Monk (#1399) was ever lost. I am confuse. Is officer Broughton
telling the truth or is the crown telling the truth? The defence need to know
if the Crown was giving false information in court in the name of Mr Broughton
Shawn (#1079) or if he made a false statement under oath in court on 9 of May,
2008 when he denied stating to the crown that officer Monk was lost north of
HWY 9 on 28 of March 2008 ?
•
Not the
complete voice log of the dispatch dialog. But a 35 min recording of mainly
unit 3135 and dispatch. The voice log of the dispatch dialog should be at lease
62 mins not 35 mins. This partial discloser was given to me on 9th of May, 2008
at about 9:30 am during trial.
•
I need in
writting when the charge “Operate Motor
Vehicle While Ability Impaired-s.
253(a) C.C.” was actually with drawn. Was it on 18 Jan 2008, or was it on 30
March, 2007.
•
I would
like it to be noted officially in the records that Day 56 of the court house
security tape contained evidence which the defence could use to give full
answer to the court within the meaning of sec. 7 of the charter of rights was
destroyed after 7 days.
•
2.The grounds for the
application are:
1.
crown said
in speaking for Mr. Broughton who was on business in Haliburton, that the
statement “Dsp1, OH HE’S LOST ALL
RIGHT....JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY”
was refering to officer Monk (#1399), while he was north of HWY 9. The
court repeated this in it’s statement “on that one I could see where that might be
a problem. They - 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? “ This is found on page 6 of the application transcript. If officer Monk
(#1399) was lost north of HWY 9 on 28th of March, 2007 at about 00:27 hrs this
would imply that he is in two location at the same time. The proof for this is
on the 3rd page of the dispatch typed log in the discloser. Officer Monk arrived at Deer Park/Metro Rd.
at 23:52 hrs on 27th of March, 2007. He stayed at this location and processed
the vehicle in question for impoundment by Elliot Towing
until 00:37 hrs on the 28th of March, 2007. This would imply that
officer Monk took negative ten mins (-10 min) to get to the location where he
was lost, north of HWY 9. Now it is
common knowledge and excepted scientific fact that time travel is not possible.
Moreover; the partial audio dispatch log disclosure given to me in court on 9th
of May, 2008 contain no reference or dialog to officer Monk being lost north of
HWY 9.
2.
court
encouraged the crown to disclosed to me the dispatch log. I took this to mean
the complete dispatch log. I received only apart of the log. A 35 mins audio documentation between
dispatch and unit 3135. The voice log of the dispatch dialog should be at lease
62 mins not 35 mins. There should be similar audio documentation for units
PS35, 3146, 3126 and D303.
3.
Day 56 of
the court house security tape contained:
•
Proof of
me asking an officer who introduced herself as counselor for a drug test to
prove my innocence. To which she replied “ I cannot do that”, and I intern
replied, “the police are not interested in the truth”.
•
Proof of
me with my hands shackled with handcuffs behind my back in the holding cell.
•
Proof of
the officers trying to violate my right to counsel, when I stated to them that
I would like to speak to my lawyer first before finger printing and photo
graphing.
•
4.
The
ambiguity and uncertainty generated by the Crown, when the prosecutor
repeatedly states in court on the record in hearings that the charge for
Operate a Motor Vehicle while ability Impaired
(s. 253(a) c.c.) has been withdrawn. However; at the YRP this charge is show-en
as pending the trial date. I gave the result of my drug screening test to Mr.
Neziol (Duty Counsel) on 30th of March, 2007. He faxed copies to the concerned
parties. Later on indicated to me that the impaired driving charges was going
to be withdrawn. It was not until in July, 2007 when I need a criminal
background check for a lucrative Telecom job in B.C. , which would have enabled
me to afford a lawyer. I realized that the charges were not withdrawn. Proof of
this can be found on page 2, 3 and 4 of
the Hearing transcripts on 30th of March 2007 (file# 07-70285).”
(Jun
17, 2008 ABUSE OF PROCESS APPLICATION against Crown Counsel (Ms. Goodier) at
the Lower Court)
OFFICER BROUGHTON
(#1079)/CREDIBILITY:
[566] Asper
DCst Broughton (1079), the lead investigator during his cross examination;
“A. Yes I am in charge.
Q. Would you like one Your Honour?
THE COURT: If I need a copy of it I will ask you for
it but I appreciate you offering.
Q. If you could refer to the transcript Your
Honour the last Court date? I don't know if you have
one ...you will note in the second paragraph Ms. Goddard says,
yes yes I sent an e-mail to my officer-in-charge and I can also advise
I had asked if he could be here today. He is up in
haliburton doing something. If he wasn't he would have been
here. But yes Mr. Ferron in that request is looking at I guess
the dispatch log and there is something that I guess that was
typed in - my officer-in-charge, sorry I am just trying to find
it - he essentially says that Constable Monk because I - I believe that
was something to do with a communication with
constable Monk was on a loan from Fourth District so essentially
when he was north of Highway 9 he was lost and didn't know where
he was because that is not his area that he normally travels so
did you give Ms. Goddard the authority and the information and
to say ...
A. She
asked my opinion and I told her.
Q. SO this is only an opinion, it is not
fact?
A. It
is my opinion.
Q. It is your opinion that he was north of
highway and lost?
A. No she asked me what would be the reason
for
references to anyone being lost' and it was my opinion that
because he normally works down in the Four District area, which
is the south/west district of York Region, and he was up on loan
for the evening on the most northern section,_ that if there was
a comment like that about being lost, it might have referred to
him being lost because he is out in the country. The area the
call came in is essentially out in the country - it is between
two communities close to the lake - no street lights, very poor
lighting for any of the street signs.
Q. Which call?
A. The call that you are on.
Q. The
one that I am talking about, lost in a unique way?
THE COURT: Rather
than guess at why Constable
Monk got lost or what that
may be - he is here -
he is one of the five
officers waiting to
testify - why don't we save
that for him and we
will move on to another area okay? Because this
witness has certain things he can tell us and
certain things he can't. We don't really need
to guess about it since we have Constable Monk
coming so is there anything further for the
Detective that is within what he observed and can answer?”
(Officer Broughton Cr-ex, May 9, 2008
TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, page 53-55)
[567] The Applicant wrote the
Crown’s prosecutor on a few occasion; inquiring about the meaning of the statement;“Dsp1, OH HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT....JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY” in the
9-1-1 dispatch log. The prosecutor claims she filed an
Application on his behalf to discuss the
aforementioned and other matter before the presiding justice. The Crown said;
in speaking for Mr. Broughton who was on business in Haliburton, that the
statement; “Dsp1, OH HE’S LOST ALL
RIGHT....JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY”; made shortly after the Applicant’s
arrest. Was referring to officer Monk
(#1399), while he was north of HWY 9.
Ms. Goodier the prosecutor who was speaking for the Crown, states on page 5-6, line 9-33 & line 1-6 of the April
28, 2008 Application Transcript respectively;
“MS. GOODIER: Yes. Yes, I sent an e-mail to
my officer-in-charge and I can also
advise I had asked if he could be here
today. He’s up in Haliburton doing
something, but if he wasn’t he would have been here, but yes, Mr. Ferron in
that request is looking a, I guess, the dispatch logs and there’s something
that’s said, I guess that was typed in,
in that. 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. The officer indicates if any messages were
sent via the onboard computer to any terminal, it is captured on the call
history. If there is a verbal comment
over the air, it is not entered in unless it is a request for something in
relation to checking licence plates, change call location, so there is no -
like I say, it does - there was something that was typed in that says oh he’s
lost all right, just in a very unique way, but there’s no question before
that. I think that’s what Mr. Ferron is
- is getting to. If - if anything went
over the air, it’s not typed up in there, so - and I - I’m not quite sure how
this is relevant either. I’m not sure if
Mr.
Ferron thinks that this comment was in relation to himself. ”
(April 28, 2008 Application Transcript,
page 5-6, line 9-33 & line 1-6)
[568] The presiding Justice
repeated this; while lending credibility to the prosecutor’s statements by
stating on page 6, line 16-22 of the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript for
Information No. 07-02559 & 07-2500;
“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? “
(April
28, 2008 Application Transcript, page 6, line 16-22)
[569] If officer Monk (#1399) was lost north of HWY 9 on 28th of March, 2007 at about 00:27 hrs this would imply that he was
in two location at the same time. The
proof for this is on the 3rd page of the dispatch typed log in the
discloser. Officer Monk arrived at Deer
Park/Metro Rd. at 23:52 hours on 27th of March, 2007. He stayed at this
location and processed the Applicant’s vehicle for impoundment by Elliot Towing
until 00:37
hours on the 28th of March, 2007. The statement “Dsp1, OH HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT....JUST IN A
VERY UNIQUE WAY” was made at 00:27 hours on the 28th of
March 2007, just
after the arrest. This would imply that
Officer Monk took negative ten min (-10
min) to get to the location where he was lost, north of HWY 9. Now it is common knowledge and excepted
scientific fact that time travel is not possible. Moreover; the partial audio dispatch log
disclosure given to the Applicant in the court on the 9th of May,
2008 contain no reference or dialog to officer Monk being lost north of HWY 9.
[570] Furthermore, Officer
Broughton (# 1075) on his cross examination. States that Officer Monk never told him that he was lost north of HWY 9 on 28 of
March 2007 . Furthermore, Officer Broughton testifies that his comments about Officer monk being lost north
of HWY 9 was only his opinion. The
information in question was asserted as fact during the Application Hearing. The presiding Justice even lend the courts
credibility to it and repeated it at the risk of bringing the Administration of
justice into disrepute.
[571] Asper DCst Broughton (#1079), the lead
investigator and the Officer in charge during his cross examination, on page
50, line 23-33 of the May 9, 2008 Trial
Continuation Transcript for Information
No. 07-02559 & 07-2500;
“Q. ... Ms. Goddard, speaking on your behalf,
said another officer I think it is Mr. Monk, badge number 1399 was lost - well
he was north of Highway 9 do you know highway 9 and what line?
A. You would have to ask officer Monk.
... He was on loan to the Three District station which is our most northern
station and he works down at the Vaughan Station which is down at Rutherford
Road and Jane.
Q. So Officer Monk was the one that gave
you this information?
A.
About what?
Q. Him being lost north of Highway 9.
A. What I have is what you have, I got the
printout on the computer, he never talked to me about being lost.
Q. He never talked to you about being
lost? Okay then you are the
officer-in-charge right?
A. Yes I am in charge. ...No she asked me
what would be the reason for a comment like that in the computer system with no
other references to anyone being lost and it was my opinion that because he
normally works down in the Four District
area, which is the south/west district of York Region, and he was up on loan
for the evening on the most northern section, that if there was a comment like that
about being lost, it might have referred to him being lost because he is out in
the country .”
(May
9 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT page 49-50, starting at line 10)
[572] Asper June 17, 2008 Application Hearing Transcript. On page 1, line
20-33 is stated;
“MR. FERRON: ...and we were discussing
the statement that was made about “Oh, he’s lost , all right” on Unique Way
(ph) and the Crown offered up the reason for this statement. The reason for the
statement and the person that it was
referring to was officer Monk, number 1399, that he was lost on - north
of Highway 9 on the 28th of March, 2008. Anyways, the Prosecutor said that she
was in contact with the officer in charge, which means Officer Broughton, okay,
number 1079.”
(June 17, 2008 Application
Transcript; page 1, line 20-33)
[573] Asper June 17, 2008 Application Hearing Transcript. On page 2, line
8-19 is stated;
“...in checking
the dispatch log, the typed dispatch log, you can see that Officer Monk -
Officer Monk was - Officer Monk ,in that time period he was - he was at the
location and he’s the one who in fact processed the vehicle with Elliott
Towing. And I think it was 0027 that the
statement was made - and officer Monk at that time period was at Deer Park and
Metro Road, right, so there’s no way he could have been north of
Highway 9, you know, unless time travel is possible.”
(June 17, 2008 Application
Transcript, page 2, line 8-19)
[574] Asper June 17, 2008 Application Hearing Transcript. On page 2, line
25-33 is stated;
“MR. FERRON: Okay. Well, I don’t know.
I’m under appearance when you go to Court and stuff that you’re seeking the truth. You want to arrive at the truth.
I mean, you know, you can render your
justice in a fair and equitable way.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. FERRON: And - well, in order for me to give
full answer and defend myself as well, I need accurate and I need timely
disclosure....”
(June
17, 2008 Application Transcript, page 2, line 25-33)
[575] Asper June 17, 2008 Application Hearing Transcript. On page 2, line
25-33 is stated;
“MS. GOODIER: I can indicate to your Honour, now, my officer actually just went
downstairs because I didn’t know until a couple of days ago
when I was in the office, there is a videotape there with Mr. Ferron’s name on
it ...
THE COURT: Well, before we get to the videotape
tape...”
(June 17, 2008 Application
Transcript, page 4, line 14-20)
[576] Asper June 17, 2008 Application Hearing Transcript. On page 5, line
10-18 is stated;
“MS. GOODIER: Yes, and I can
indicate that. My officer in charge who
will be back shortly and can explain this, had to go to - I
believe he had to go to headquarters and
had to go through a sergeant and someone else. These are call logs - I don’t
know if they differ. I just received them, but I think that these have the
answers that Mr. Ferron is looking for.”
(June 17, 2008 Application Transcript,
page 5, line 10-18)
[577] Asper June 17, 2008 Application Hearing Transcript. On page 7, line
11-23 is stated;
“MR. FERRON: But Your Honour, that still doesn’t provide me an explanation why - why I’m giving the reason that Officer Monk is lost north of Highway 9. I
mean, okay - basically what I’m saying, was the Crown lying to the Court or was
Officer Monk - I mean, Office Broughton lying to the Court when he denied that
he made that statement to Ms. Godder (sic) or in the form or email or
on the phone or whatever when he was in - I need that question answered.
THE COURT: Well, again, the issue about
Constable Monk is something that’s already canvassed at trial and you’ve got
more informations. So that’s really an issue for the continued trial.”
(June
17, 2008 Application Transcript, page 7, line 11-23)
[578] Officer Monk (# 1399) on page 77 to 82 of the July 23, 2008 Trial
Continuation Transcript on his cross examination states that he made the statement
“Dsp1, OH HE’S LOST ALL
RIGHT....JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY”
after arresting
the Applicant and that this statement was referring to the Applicant, after
being arrested. On page 77, line 2-33 of the July 23, 2008 Trial Continuation Transcript;
“Q. Could
you - can you read the statement the dispatcher made, please? The one right
below...
A. I don’t....
Q. ...the one that’s crossed out in....
A. Okay. I don’t - I was going to say I don’t see any statements
from the dispatch. There’s a statement at 0027 hours says ‘Oh, he’s lost all right, just in
a very unique way’.
Q. Okay.
A. That’s the only thing I see for 0027 hours.
Q. Okay. And which unit?
A. That was myself.
Q. That’s yourself?
A. Yeah.
Q. Car 135.
A. Thirty-one-thirty-five, yes.
Q. Thirty-one-thirty-five. And the the officer 1399, who is
that?
A. That’s myself.
Q. That’s Yourself?
A. Yeah.
Q. And who is this statement referring to ?
A. Yourself.
Q. Me?
A. Yourself, yes. One of the comments in the - in the call
history I believe was that the - the complainant believed that you possible
might be lost. I responded based on everything I had read in the call at that
point that may be lost in a unique way based on the - the way you had been
driving. It didn’t indicate to me that you were lost at all, that you were just trying to
get away.”
(July 23, 2008 Trial Continuation Transcript on page
77, line 2-33)
[579] During officer Monk’s cross examination, the Applicant instructed officer Monk to read out
loud the Prosecutor’s statements (quote 36) of him being lost north of HWY
9. The presiding Justice instructed him
not to read out loud. According to July
23, 2008 Trial Continuation Transcript
on page 78-82;
“THE COURT: You don’t have to read out loud. He’s just asking you to read it,
but is it starting with ‘No, I don’t have the Crown’s response’?
MR. FERRON: Yes Please.
THE COURT: Okay. What’s the point of that? It’s a response by the Crown about how one
can get radio transmissions which you asked for in the middle of the trial, I
believe.
MR. FERRON: No, but if you read to that line.
THE COURT: No, well I just - we see it. I have it
and I appreciate you giving it to me as well.
What’s - what’s - what can this officer help us with? What question do you have......
THE COURT: All
right. I think the beginning point’s
plain, just down t the end of the part that’s highlighted? Is that the end? you can tell it’s highlighted even though the
colour isn’t clear because it’s a black and white - okay. so the
officer can read that and then you can ask whatever questions you wish. But you don’t have to read out loud.
A. Okay, thank you Your
Honour.
THE COURT: Take
a look.
And then you can direct the officer’s attention to any parts you want to
ask about.
MR. FERRON: I would like it read - read out loud ‘cause I would like....
THE COURT: We’re not going to stand here and read
parts of transcripts for no reason. so if you have a particular...
MR. FERRON: But....
THE COURT: Stop. If you have a particular point that you want
to ask the officer, direct his attention to this particular phrase that’s fine,
but to have him read paragraphs that
don’t have any apparent point, we just don’t have time for that.
MR. FERRON: May I
ask if ....
THE COURT: This
trial started in January and we need to focus this trial. Now usually your questioned are - are
focussed. So I suspect you do have a
point you wish to make and - you know - I’ll let you try to make the way you want it, but let’s not read - you know
- a lengthy paragraph if there’s just one point in there or two that you want
to make. See if you can go right to the
point. The officer’s read it.
A. Yep.
THE COURT: What
do you wish to ask him? And you can
refer to this. You can say, ‘look, this sentence. What does it mean’ or whatever - whatever
way you put your question. It’s your question. But what is it you want to ask about this?
MR. FERRON:
Q. Sir, on - on - when
this application was filed I proposed that that statement that you read
about me being lost in a very unique way
was referring to me. That was my
argument to the court that I was lost in a vary unique way. The Crown proposed - the Crown’s speaking for
officer Broughton said that he was in Halliburton and they were speaking for
him and said that sending an e-mail that he - communicating that that statement
was referring to you sir, that you were lost north of Highway 9 on the 28th of
March. Now I’m asking you...
A. Mm-hmm
Q. ...was that statement referring to you?
A. No, I’ve already
advised you that, sir.
Q. Okay.
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...
A. Yes.”
(July
23, 2008 Trial Continuation Transcript, page 78-82, line 15-28, line 14-33,
line 1-33, line 1-33, line 1-27)
[580] Officer Monk revealed in the cross examination that he in fact made
the statement “Dsp1, OH HE’S LOST ALL
RIGHT....JUST IN A VERY UNIQUE WAY” after he made the arrest. The full statement can be read on page# 1 of the OFFICER RADIO LOG FOR
587 at 00:26 hours and 00:27 hours on
the 7th of March 2007 which stated
“SO MUCH FOR LUNCH EH ... HE’S LOST ALL RIGHT ... JUS IN A VERY UNIQUE
WAY”.
[581] The Crown in speaking for the Officer - in - charge gave false
statements on record. The Applicant
instructed Officer Monk to read 4 lines from a copy of page# 5 from 28th of April 2008 Application
Transcript for Information No. 07-02559 & 07-2500. This was
done to establish the identity of the Officer-in-charge, so that all
concerned would know who the Applicant was speaking about. Next the Applicant
instructed Officer Monk to read 24 lines from a copy of page# 5-6 from 28th of April 2008 Application
Transcript for Information No. 07-02559 & 07-2500. This was to establish for the Crown, the
Records, the Public, the Court and Officer Monk the document containing the
Crown’s explanation of an Officer being lost north of HWY 9 on 28th of March 2007 at about 00:27 hours. This
would have put all concerned “on the same page”, preparing them for the
examination of the aforementioned issue.
[582] The Learned Trial Judge interjected and instructed Officer Monk not to read out loud. The Applicant didn't want to
upset the presiding Justice. So he took his advice or what he though was his
advice. He did as instructed, or as he though he was being instructed by the
Honourable Ontario Court Justice to do in his cross-examination of Officer
Monk; with respect to the document in question.
[583] Even though he needed to establish the identity of the
Officer-in-charge, the document in question and it contents. Which he was asking Officer Monk about in Court. The Records, the Crown,
the Public, the Applicant and the Officer which was being cross examined; was denied
the right to hear the the aforementioned
document’s contents.
[584] The Applicant does-not know if Officer Monk read the correct parts
of the document, if the officer read the document in question since he was not
permitted by the presiding Justice to read it out loud? He does-not know how
the Court, Crown, Public and the Record is suppose to follow his arguments,
reasoning, logic and questions without hearing the document’s contents and
establishing its identity?
Is
this in the interest of the public good?
OFFICER STRIBBELL
(#529)/CREDIBILITY:
[585]
On the 23rd of July
2008 there was the trial continuation Hearing for the Provincial Court of
Justice, in court room 201, at New market Courthouse for Information No.: 07-02559 . Greg Stribbell testified. Officers
Stribbell revealed indirectly through cross examination that the material
evidence he had, proving the Applicant past crack cocaine use was mere gossip
between 3 officers and did not originate with the wife of the Applicant.
[586] It is prudent to keep a mental note, that DC Greg K.
Stribbell (#529) with 21 years of law enforcement experience of 3D, was the
Officer, task to investigate the case for GO
2007-7285. The said Officer who made
a false returned with respect to crack cocaine.
The said Officer who committed perjury in a Court of law under
oath. There has also been the
destruction or disappearance of evidence under his watch.
[587] Moreover, DC Stribbell is the Officer tasked to investigate while his credibility was in
question. This is the Officer who
distributed false information to the, Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket
Criminal division. This is the Officer in addition to false return and
defamation, gave contradictory testimony under Oat in a Court of law.
[588] The following is not Officer Stribbell’s oath, nevertheless it is a
typical oath taken by Officers who are giving evidence under oath. The
following is a part of his given evidence taken from July 23, 2008 TRIAL
TRANSCRIPT as witness by the Courts. It
is easily demonstrable that his testimony violates the Code, the rules of the
court, the code of conduct for police officers, the policies of the minister of
justice, the directives of the Attorney General of Ontario and the consciousness
of the court. Mr Stribbell is no ordinary Officer, he is an experience seasoned
detective task with investigating the Applicant’s Criminal matter.
[589] Officers
Typical Oath at Trial:
“Q. Okay . I understand that you are a member
of the York Regional Police. Is that
correct?
A. I am. ...
Q. Okay, and were you on duty in your capacity as a York
Regional police officer on the, sorry, the
27th of March, 2007?
A. Yes, I was. ...
Q. During your contact with Mr. Ferron on
the 27th, and I guess, until the early morning hours of the 28th of March, did
you have occasion to make notes?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. and when did you make your notes?
A. At the time and shortly thereafter.
Q. And were the events fresh in your mind
when you made your notes?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. And have you made any changes, alterations, additions or
deletions to your notes since that time?
A. No, I have not.
Q. And do you require the use of your notes for
the purposes of refreshing your memory here today?
A. Yes, if I could. ...
THE COURT: Okay. So, Detective
Constable, I’ll
permit you to refer to your notes to refresh your independent recollection.”
(January 18th, 2008 Trial Transcript, page 29-31)
[590] Asper
DC Stribbell (#529), the officer tasked to investigate GO 2007-70285. He states
under cross examination;
“Q. Okay. so where did you get the
information that I used drugs in the past, drugs....
A. From your wife?
Q. From my wife?
A. Yes.
Q. Directly from my wife?
A. Directly from your - right.
Q. Directly from my wife?
A. Yeah, she had indicated to us when she came
into talk to you and I was talking - ‘cause I was inquiring as to why you wouldn’t
communicate and deal with the Forms 10’s and 11.1. So I asked numerous questions. First and foremost was did you have the
ability to communicate or did we have to an interpreter in here? And I was - show- indicated that you
understood English perfectly well. Then I said, ‘Does your husband abuse
alcohol or drugs?’ She said no you do
not abuse them. You have used crack
cocaine in the past, but to her knowledge you do not use it now.”
(23
July 2008, TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, page 114, line 10-26)
[591] Asper DC Stribbell (529), the officer tasked
to investigate GO 2007-70285. He states under cross examination;
“Q. Yes, but still it’s missing in your
notes.
A. What’s missing in my notes?
Q. Where my wife told you that I did crack
cocaine in the past.
A. Thats the information that I received
when I got to work that morning. I believed Staff Sergeant Ringler implicitly that if he asked your wife that and she
answered that way I have no reason to
doubt that answer from him.
Q. Okay. What time did he speak to my wife?
A. 6:33 a.m. I called your wife.
Q. 6.33 a.m.
A. Got the voice mailbox for Amanda and I
left a - a message at that point. That’s
on page 78 of my notes.
Q. I’m - I’m there.
A. At 6:45 Amanda Ferron called back.
Q. Okay,
and then what?
A. I
spoke to her on the phone.
Q. Spoke to her on the phone. Was it at this point that she revealed to you
that I used crack in the past?
A. No, I
convinced her to come to the station.
Q. She came to the station and spoke to
you?
A. Yes. My concern at this point like I’ve indicated was weather there was a reason for
the behavior that was being exhibited and that we needed to go down another
another avenue with regards - to make sure that you understood.”
(23
July 2008, TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, page 118, line 8-3)
[592] Asper DC Stribbell (529), the officer tasked
to investigate GO 2007-70285. He states in his notes;
“5:45
AM
...
Ringler called her last night and she advised that he does no do drugs or
drink. Has used crack in the past, but not for a
long time.
6:20 AM
... Confirmed in S/Sgt. Ringler’s notes that the accused could speak as when he was
trying to deal with him kept saying “Leave me alone” & nothing else.
Advised S/Sgt Ledger that I would give his
wife a call & see if there was anything we could do to get him to start
speaking.”
(DC
Stribbel(529), TYPED OFFICERS NOTES, page 14)
[593] Asper DC Stribbell (529), the officer tasked
to investigate GO 2007-70285. He states under cross examination;
“Q. What time was he - sorry - what time was
she at the station that she was giving you this information?
A. Which information is she giving?
Q. That I used crack cocaine.
A. I’ve already explained that. That’s
the information that was relayed to me that your wife told Staff Sergeant Ringler.
Q. But - but you said she told you
directly.
A. That was the information I received.
Q. Okay, okay. So you got the information from -
from Ringler?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay, okay, that’s what - that’s -
that’s what I’m asking you, okay. If you
had accepted the paper - when you look at - when you look at Ringler’s notes.
A. I’ve never seen Ringler’s notes.
Q. You’ve never seen Ringler’s notes. He
told you that with his mouth?
A. No, Staff Sergeant Ledger did. Staff Sergeant - You have to understand the
process.
Q. Oh, oh, sorry, sir. Okay.
A. Staff Sergeant Ringler was the Staff
Sergeant on duty the night before. He
would have been relieved by Staff Sergeant Ledger. He would have brought up what had transpired
the night before and brought Staff Sergeant
Ledger up to speed. When I
reported for work at 5:45 a.m. Staff Sergeant Ledger came back and advised me that you were in the
cells, advised me the circumstances, what he had been told by Ringler, so all
the information is now relayed to me.”
(23
July 2008, TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, page 119, line 1-26)
[594] Asper DC Stribbell (#529), the officer tasked
to investigate GO 2007-70285. He states under cross examination;
“A. ‘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’ then a notation for 6:20.
Q. Okay. Now - now I’m going to read you
Staff Sergeant Ringler’s noes as pertaining to that.
A. Okay.
Q. ‘Does not drink, does not do drugs, I suspect
crack cocaine from past experience’, I he said suspects crack cocaine from past experience. Staff Sergeant
Ringler was here he test - testified and I specifically asked him if this
statement was his opinion and he said it was his opinion. You can check the transcripts. Your - your
statement, it starts out the same as his, right - your - your - you’re talking
about what he says. And it starts out the same as his except for when you get
to the last part. Instead of saying it was staff Sergent’s professional opinion
- no - or experience or whatever, you say that I used it - my wife said I used
crack in the past but only for a short time.
A. What’s the question?
Q. Well
why is there a difference?
A. That’s what I was told. I had told you I had
not seen Staff Sergeant Ringler’s notes.
I spoke to Staff Sergeant Ledger that morning. That was the information relayed to me.
Q. Orally?
A. Of course orally. He was talking to me....”
(23 July 2008, TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, page 119, line 1-29)
[595] Officer Stribbell’s (#529), on 28th of March 2008, between 5:00 AM and & 7:45 AM. Authored THE
SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT. On page 1, in the comment box it’s states;
“The accused lives at the above address with
his wife and children. His wife indicated to police that he does not abuse
drugs or alcohol. In the past however he has used drugs.”
(SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT, page 1, comment box)
[596] Asper Officer Stribbell’s (#529) TYPED
OFFICERS NOTES, on page 15, at 6:33:AM.
It reads;
“6:33 AM
Called Mrs. Ferron 476-1092 got voice
mailbox for Amanda - left message for her to call me - Amanda Ferron called
back & advised that she would be
attending 3DHQ at 9AM after she gets the kids off to school. Confirmed
that there is absolutely no reason for Wayne not to be talking other than maybe
he is tired. Advised S/Sgt. of this development. Preparing S/C and file in case we are unable to get the accused to
speak to us to confirm that he will attend court as required.”
(TYPED OFFICERS NOTES, page 15, at 6:33 AM)
[597] Asper
officer Stribbell (#529), from the TYPED
OFFICERS NOTES on page 14, at 6:20 AM, he declares;
“6:20AM
Went back & attempted to speak to him.
just sat there & would not say anything. Confirmed in S/Sgt. Ringler’s notes that the accused could speak as when he was trying to deal with him kept
saying “Leave me alone” & nothing else.
Advised S/Sgt Ledger that I would give his wife a call & see if
there was anything we could do to get him to start speaking.”
(TYPED OFFICERS NOTE, page 14, at 6:20 AM)
[598] Pursuant to the Honourable Justice Healey;
“[11] The eighth
ground of appeal was "misapprehension
of evidence; conviction rests on findings tainted by errors". Throughout
the argument of this appeal the appellant was urged by the court to concisely
outline the misapprehension of evidence or errors in the findings of Justice
Kenkel. At no time was he ever able to satisfy me that there were such
misapprehensions or errors, and he kept reverting to issues or documents
that were inconsequent to the findings
made by the trial judge. This ground of appeal is dismissed.”
(Honourable Justice Healey, SUPERIOR
COURT OF JUSTICE , RULING for
Information No.: 07-02559)
[599] Officer Stribbell clearly states that the Applicant used drugs
in the past. In para [590], he states
that the Claimant’s wife told him directly; that the Applicant used crack
cocaine in the past, when she came to to 3D HQ at about 9:00 A.M. on the 28th of March 2007.
In para [591] and [593]; when pressed further in the cross
examination. He gave the impression that
the information about crack cocaine came from Officer Ringler.
In para [593]; he reveals that Officer Ledger was the origin of the
Applicant’s allege crack cocaine use information.
In para [594]; he clearly states that the Applicant’s allege crack cocaine use was hearsay to the third degree or
mere gossip.
In para [593], he states that he never saw officer Ringler’s
notes. Yet he contradicts this by stating
explicitly in his own notes that he used Ssgt Ringler’s notes to confirm the
information at issue.
[600] To briefly analyze Officer Stribbell’s
(#529) testimony; he clearly states, he confirmed in S/Sgt. Ringlers notes, the
allege crack cocaine use information.
Officer Stribbell stated originally that the Applicant’s wife said the
Applicant used crack cocaine in the past and she told him directly. The
fundamental problem is. Officer Ringler entered notes into the SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT between 5:00 AM and 7:45 AM on the 28th of March
2007. In this same interval he enters
into is notes that the Applicant used crack cocaine in the past.
The Applicant’s wife came to 3D HQ after 8:45 AM on the 28th of March 2007. After dropping three of their four children
to school. Officer Stribbell repeatedly
stated, that the Applicant’s wife gave him the information concerning his past
alleged crack cocaine use, directly.
But, he entered in his note book on page 77-78 and the SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT before
7:45 AM on the 28th March 2007; that the Applicant used
drugs in the past. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE WITHOUT TIME TRAVEL?
When pressed further in his cross examination , Officer Stribbell
revealed that the Applicant’s crack
cocaine use information, had been obtained orally by him from Officer Ledger;
who intern obtained the said information orally from Officer Ringler. PLAIN OLD HEARSAY TO THE THIRD DEGREE OR EVEN
WORSE; GOSSIP, TRANSMOGRIFIED INTO EVIDENCE!!!
[601] The
presiding Ontario Provincial Court Justice, witness most of this in his court
room, except for the details about the officers notes; the aforementioned
perjury, and the false oat taken by
Officer Stribbell on the 23rd of July 2008. As the Applicant is also a witness, the
record, the Crown and anyone else who was in the court room on the said
date. The prosecutor chose not do an examination in Chief of Officer Stribbell or
even to reexamine him to clear up any discrepancies. It was
a silent acknowledgment of the real evidence before the Newmarket, Ontario
Provincial Court. Yet the Applicant alone stand before the honourable
Court of Appeal for Ontario, charged,
convicted and still giving full answer for his innocence. The consciousness of the Court cries out, weeping for the good of the
public.
DC Stribbell(529); is the Officer
tasked to investigate GO 2007-70285. It
is his name and Officer Broughton’s, which grace most of the GO 2007-70285
DOCUMENTS. Yet for the aforementioned
reasons Officer Brougton is wanting of credibility. Both Officers has shown to be liars, are
shown to be perverting the course of justice.
[602] This is clear in para [55]. The presiding Judge J.F.K, witness all this
in his court room; the aforementioned perjury, and the false oat taken by
Officer Stribbell on the 23rd of July 2008.
As the Applicant is also a witness, the record is a witness, the Crown
(Ms. Goodier), was a witness, and anyone else who was in the Court room on the
said date. Yet, the Applicant alone
alone stand before this honourable court, charged, convicted and still giving
full answer for his innocence. IS THE LAW DISCRIMINATORY?
DCst BROUGHTON (1079) &
dc stribbell (529)/CREDIBILITY:
[603] Asper
the INITIAL OFFICER REPORT, prepared
at about 00:55 hours on 28th of March 2007, by Officer Broughton
(1079);
“At 00:13 hrs
officer 1399 formed reasonable grounds
that the accused Mr. Wayne Ferron was
impaired by drugs.
He was asked to step out of the vehicle and he refused. Officers
removed the accused and noticed that he was holding papers and a cell phone in his hand. The accused was passively resisting but when officers attempted to handcuff
the male he became combative. The
officers attempted to use distractive methods and the male became enraged. Officers noticed the incredible strength
of the male and that he was not responding to distractive strikes .
{...}
The male was transported to 3 District and
immediately placed in a cell for his safely. He will be released on a form
10/11.1 when he Officer in Charge of the station feels that the accused is no
longer under the influence of drugs or
alcohol and it is safe for the accused to be released”
(Officer
Broughton (1079), INITIAL OFFICER REPORT )
[604] Asper
the PROSECUTION SUMMARY-GUILTY PLEA
SYNOPSIS, prepared at about 06:54
hours on 28th of March 2007, by Officer Stribbell (529);
Count #1 Impaired Operation Sec 253(a) CC
“...At 013 hours
officers formed the opinion
that the accused’s ability to operate a
motor vehicle was impaired by drugs. The accused was advised that he was under
arrest and removed from the motor
vehicle.
Count #2 Resist Arrest Sec. 129 cc
...The accused refused to exit his motor vehicle and as officer went
to remove him. At
this time the accused became assaultive towards
the officers. Distraction techniques
were used but were not effective and the accused became completely enraged.
Officers noted that his strength was
incredible at this point...”
(Officer Stribbell (529), PROSECUTION SUMMARY-GUILTY PLEA SYNOPSIS)
[605] Asper
the Typed OFFICER’S NOTES, at about 12:45 PM on 28th of March 2007, by Staff Sergeant Bruce Ringler
(193);
“He was --- at scene but not talking.
They suspect impaired by drugs
- cocaine or crack cocaine.
Struggle at scene, non - cooperative.
Cuffed & put into cell 3DM5.
--- pulled shirt over his face.”
(Staff
Sergeant Bruce Ringler (193), Typed OFFICER’S NOTES, page 32 at 12:45 PM)
[606] Asper
the Typed OFFICER’S NOTES, at about 12:45 PM on 28th of March 2007, by Detective Greg Stribbell
(529);
“5:45 AM 10-6 3DHQ A10/Sgt. 07-70285 - Speaking to S/sgt. Ledger re the incident,
he explained that D/C Broughton and P/C Burd had arrested him last
night for impaired by drugs, took 5
officers to handcuff him. Has also been charged with resist arrest. Originally
handed his licence but has not said anything, will not speak to anyone. Wife
Mrs. Feron 476-1092
S/gt. Ringler called her last night and she advised that he does no do drugs or
drink. Has used crack in the past, but not for a long time. ”
(Staff
Sergeant Bruce Ringler (193), Typed OFFICER’S NOTES, page 14 at 12:45 AM)
[607] Asper
the SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, prepared at
about 13:59 hours on 28th of March 2007, by Officer Stribbell (529);
“D/C Broughton had gone back to his vehicle and was attempting to
call Rogers Cable to confirm if the accused actually worked for them and if
they had any idea what was wrong with him. His behavior was such that D/C
Broughton thought that he had been using drugs. ”
(Officer Stribbell (529), SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT)
[608] Asper
the SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT,
prepared at about morning of 28th on March 2007, by Officer
Stribbell (529);
“The
accused lives at the above address with his wife and children. His wife
indicated to police that he does not abuse drugs or alcohol.
In the past however he has used drugs.”
(Officer
Stribbell (529), SHOW CAUSE HEARING
REPORT, page 1 comment box)
[609] TAKE NOTICE: There
is a change from one Officer (1399)
having reasonable grounds during the arrest; to all the Officers collectively having
reasonable grounds, about six hours
later after the initial Officer’s report by the Officer tasked to investigate
the matter at issue. It is a small unnoticeable change, but effective in
establishing reasonable grounds to arrest six hours after the arrest; violating
due process and the Charter; robbing the accused and his family of there
humanity; destroying the relation ship of TRUST between the accused and the
State, and robing the courts and the Canadian people of the ends of justice.
[610] There is a
change from impairment by alcohol or drugs; to impairment by drugs only. There
is Officer Broughton crossing out the word alcohol in his memoranda notebook.
There is a refusal and avoidance of the YRP conducting or asking to conduct a
drug test. There is a strong inference of the use of crack cocaine use by
Officer Stribbell, in is notes and in the SHOW
CAUSE HEARING as justification for
the Bond terms the Prosecution was asking for. There is the use of the
complainant’s unsigned SUMMARY OF
WITNESS ACCOUNT, to commission the second information. There was a lack of
foresight by the prosecution to request a similar sample for and independent
drug test as conformation or evidence to the contrary against the Applicant’s
private drugs test. And the was the entering of data into the YORK REGIONAL
POLICE SERVICES data base of the Applicant’s consumption of drugs, being
intoxicated with 80 mgs of alcohol for the purpose of government statistics
without any reliable scientific test ever being performed.
[611] It should be noted that the Applicant
informed all present at the Bond hearing on the morning of 28th of
March 2007, that he would be attending the doctors office to have a drugs test
preformed for the purposes of evidence to the contrary against the allege
charges.
“In General, reasonable grounds are grounds that would lead an
ordinary, prudent, and cautious person to have a strong and honest belief about
the situation at issue.”
[612] Does a changing reasonable ground, where
changing infers that the reasonable probable grounds (RPG) is arbitrary, fit
the legal definition of reasonable objective grounds, in accordance with legislation and case law?
[613] For GO
2007-20285, there was two senior officers.
The officer-in-charge, DCst
Broughton (1079) and the acting
sergeant, Officer Williamson (1108). Officer Williamson under cross examination,
does not remember or cannot independently recollect with the aid of his notes
what the accused was charged or arrested for.
[614] Officer Broughton has stated multiple of
times, that he had no reasonable grounds to arrest the Applicant.
[615] Officer Broughton states in is INITIAL
OFFICER REPORT, that Officer 1399 had reasonable grounds for the
arrest. This is officer Monk.
[616] Officer Stribbell six ours later, the
officer task to investigate GO 2007-70285.
Changes the reasonable grounds statement from one officer having
reasonable grounds to officers having reasonable grounds.
[617] Now, is a shifting belief; consistent with
the reasonable belief of a reasonable prudent cautious officer; having a strong
and honest belief about the situation at issue and acting in a professional
capacity?
[618] Officer Broughton, states that there was no
confirmation or indication of impairment by alcohol from him or the other
officers. Yet in THE INITIAL OFFICER’S
REPORT DOCUMENT, Officer Broughton clearly states that the accused was
under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
[619] When officer Broughton, took an oat to give
his independent recollection. This was a
false oat in the Applicant’s humble opinion, for the aforementioned reasons.
Therefore
Officer Broughton, the Officer-in-charge and the lead investigator, is wanting
for credibility.
It
also follows that the arrest was not a lawful arrest; it lacks a reasonable objective reason. Spawned from a the honest belief of
reasonable prudent cautious officers. It
is like the officer-in-charge states concerning his belief. He had reasonable cause to stop, but not to
arrest.
3D HQ,
DAY 56 SECURITY TAPE for GO 2007-70285
VIDEO TAPED EVIDENCE TO THE
CONTRARY:
[620] [00:28] 3D HQ, DAY 56 SECURITY TAPE for GO
2007-70285, 28th of March
2007
•
Officer
Brown arrives with accused in cruiser 3 -126 at 3D HQ;
•
a lone
unidentified young female Officer (Officer X) of small stature, pulls
the prone-positioned-accuse out of
the back seat of the vehicle; with hands
shackled behind back, chest and knees in-contact with back-seat, heels
perpendicular to the ceiling, toes perpendicular to the ground and pointing
to the sally ports concrete floor while about 6 male officer observed the said
action;
•
about 6 Officers carried
the accuse through the sally port, away
from or past the eye wash station into search area or hallway;
[621] [00:30] 3D HQ, DAY 56 SECURITY TAPE for GO
2007-70285, 28th of March
2007
•
searched
in the presents of about 7 Officers, this was about the third or fourth search
of the Applicant’s person;
[622] [00:33] 3D HQ, DAY 56 SECURITY TAPE for GO
2007-70285, 28th of March
2007
[623] [00:34] 3D HQ, DAY 56 SECURITY TAPE for GO
2007-70285, 28th of March
2007
•
2 officers
enters into 3DM5 (cell# 5);
•
officers removes
accuse belt;
•
officers removes
accuse watch;
•
Asper
Typed Officers Notes, Officer Burd states;
“Male had to be carried into cell. Male
refused to wash out eyes and just continued to sit on floor.”
(Officer Burd (#1075), Typed Officers Notes, page 7-8, at 00:36)
•
Asper
Typed Officers Notes, Officer Williamson states;
“male carried into cell block - when tried to give up watch - male’s belt and watch taken and carried
- male still not talking and continues to cover his eyes ... re-attended the
cell block with S/sgt. Ringler,
male is shaking in cell
with shirt over his face.”
(Officer Williamson, Officers Notes, page 22, at 00:24)
•
2 officers out 3DM5 (cell# 5)
[624] [00:36] 3D HQ, DAY 56 SECURITY TAPE for GO
2007-70285, 28th of March
2007
•
No
officers present
•
No eyewash
station present
•
Accused
covering eyes with shirt to sooth eyes.
•
Cannot
open eyes. temporarily blind;
•
Does-not know location or surroundings or what is
contained in the room;
•
Traumatized
and tormented by pain cause caused by chemical;
[625] [00:51] 3D HQ, DAY 56 SECURITY TAPE for GO
2007-70285, 28th of March
2007
•
2 Officers
came into cell 3DM5 (cell# 5)
•
Asper
Typed Officers Notes, Officer Broughton
states;
“male continued to be
uncooperative male carried into
cell advised PC Brown read Rights
to Counsel/Caution and was
unresponsive - one in cells male began
taking clothes off and acting
irrationally and was moved to bullpen. Opportunity for lawyer/D.C. suspended until male no longer under influence - re his personal safety.”
(Officer Broughton (#1079), Typed Officers Notes, page 30, at
00:24, line 13-19)
•
Asper DCst
Broughton(1079), the lead investigator during his cross examination;
“No I was advised by P.C. Brown that’s what
he did so that I have it in my notes to ensure that you were given your Charter Rights. ...
P.C. Brown advised me that your rights
to counsel and caution were read and
your response was unresponsive. I was
advised that you were continuing to be uncooperative in the cells.”
(Officer Broughton (#1079), May 9, 2008,
TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, page 52, line 9 -16)
• 2
Officers came out of cell 3DM5 (cell#5)
[626] [00:53] 3D HQ, DAY 56 SECURITY TAPE for GO
2007-70285, 28th of March
2007
Accused Transfered to Bullpen
Asper Officer Williamson;
“Transfer the (A) to bullpen. P/C
Lenore had to drag him to bullpen.”
(Officer
Williamson, Officers Notes, page 23,
at 00:56)
[627] [00:56] 3D HQ, DAY 56 SECURITY TAPE for GO
2007-70285, 28th of March
2007
•
Officers
in
•
officers
remove accused shirts
•
Officers
out
[628] [00:58] 3D HQ, DAY 56 SECURITY TAPE for GO
2007-70285, 28th of March
2007
[629] [01:35] 3D HQ, DAY 56 SECURITY TAPE for GO
2007-70285, 28th of March
2007
•
H2O (
water in container) was left by Staff Sergeant.
[630] [10:29] 3D HQ, DAY 56 SECURITY TAPE for GO
2007-70285, 28th of March
2007
•
SWAT-TEAM came, shackled and transported the accused to Newmarket courthouse;
•
END OF RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR GO 2007-70285
[631] There are many issues within
the video tape which are important to the public good, society and the
Administration of Justice. However, for
the matter before the court. March 28, 2007, at time 00:28 hundred hours in the SALLY
PORT and 00:34 hundred hours in
the so called “BULL PEN” should be
looked at closely;
[632] March 28, 2007, at time
00:28 hundred hours in the SALLY PORT, is video evidence to the contrary
against the, given evidence by the Officers in there memoranda note books and
and there testimonies under oath in a court of law. In short, it show the
officers were lying about the method and position of transportation of the
Applicant to 3DHQ and about the Appellant trying to kick out the Cruiser 3126
side window; while in a reclined position on his back. Perpendicular toes to
the ground and perpendicular heel to the ceiling of the sally port; clearly,
without reasonable doubt, demonstrates that the Applicant was transported in
the prone position. Furthermore, if he
was kicking the side window of Cruiser 3126 violently; it is reasonable to
assume that his toes would be broken or seriously damaged. Which was not the case, given the fact that
he went to the Doctors immediately after release.
This clearly show that the Officers were lying and
perverting the course of justice. Whether it was coordinated, is for the court
to decide.
How could the Prosecutor miss this material fact when
prudently reviewing the evidence before deciding to prosecute?
[633] March 28, 2007, at time 00:34 hundred hours in the so called
BULL PEN; is video evidence to the contrary, to the evidence presented by
Officer Broughton(1079), in his notes notes and under oath in a court of law,
in his testimony. He claims, at about 00:51 hundred hours, the Applicant was
taking off his cloths. The video evidence does not confirm this or show this.
He even went as far as stating that the Applicant rights was suspended. How this is justified, I don’t know. But it
is an admission of denial of the Applicant’s Rights. Similarly, at this time
the Officer in Charge, Officer Broughton
is lying, at least about the point being discussed.
This clearly show that the Officers were lying and
perverting the course of justice. Whether it was willful, is for the court to
decide?
How could the Prosecutor miss this material fact when
prudently reviewing the evidence before deciding to prosecute?
Whether the notion of “fruits from a poisonous tree”
or “ unclean hands” come into play here, exceeds my scarce legal knowledge?
The aforementioned material evidence in support of the
Applicant’s analysis and deductions, is in the exhibits.
The learned Trial Judge error, in apprehending this
evidence before the Summary conviction Court?
OFFICER BURD (#1079)/CREDIBILITY:
[634]
“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.”
(Officer Burd, TYPED OFFICERS NOTES, page 6 -- para
2-- line 3-6, or page 133 -- line 5-9 of OFFICERS NOTES)
[635] Officer Broughton (#1079), made the statement about the accused;
“Once he was put into the - into
the back of the police car he - the male
started kicking at the back window in the vehicle. He had - he was in his sock feet and then I
was told by some of the other officers that he was physically trying to take his clothes off in the back of the police car. ... If you’re flexible enough, I’ve physically seen people
bring their legs up and move around. So
you can ... tear clothes, you can reach the back of your pants and pull them
down, but he - the other officers were telling me that he was physically trying
to take his off, but I witnessed him trying to kick the back windows .”
(Officer Broughton
(#1079), 18th of January 2008 Trial
Transcript, page 42-43, line 30-31 & line 1-13)
[636]
“Male rolled onto backside. Male
crossed his legs and would not respond to police direction Male would not get
into rear of police car or uncross his legs.
Officers physically pulled into rear of police car Male began kicking at rear window with sock
feet advised
by officers that he was trying to take clothes off.”
(Officer Broughton
(#1079), TYPED OFFICERS NOTE, page
29 -- para 1-- line 4-12)
[637] Officer Brown (#1666) on page# 45 of the 23rd of July
2008 trial continuation transcript was asked a series of question with respect
to accused being placed in the rear seat of police vehicle in the prone
position and allege kicking of window;
“Q.
... So Mr. Ferron is finally handcuffed?”
A. Yes.”
Q. And what
happened after that?”
A. After he was
finally handcuffed Mr. Ferron then - he didn’t - he- had to be carried over to
the police cruiser. He was searched by
myself and placed in the back of the car.?
Q. And this is
your car?
A. Yes, in my
car. He was laying on the back. He was laying in the back seat and he was also
at that point -
then after he was into the
car he was kicking out the back window.”
(Officer Brown
(#1666), July 2008 Trial Continuation
Transcript, page# 45 of the 23rd)
[638] Officer Williams (#1108) on page# 26 of the 23rd of
July 2008 trial continuation transcript was asked a series of question with
respect to accused being placed in the rear seat of police vehicle in the prone
position and allege kicking of window;
“Q.
... was I put in the prone position?
A. You were
laying down, yes.
Q. On my
stomach?
A. At the
beginning, probably.
Q. Hands behind
my back?
A. Yes.
Q. Was I kicking the window, sir?
A. No.
Q. Was I kicking anything in the vehicle?
A. Not that I recollect.”
(Officer Williams
(#1108), 23rd of July 2008 trial
continuation Transcript, page# 26 of the)
[639] Officer Monk (#1399), made this statement concerning accused
being placed in the rear seat of police vehicle in the prone position and
allege kicking of window;
“We - we placed him in P.C.
Brown’s police cruiser. Once he was
secured in the back of the police cruiser he then got into a - a - a - a reclined position on his back and began to kick
at the - I believe it was the passenger side rear window of the police cruiser.”
(Officer Monk
(#1399),July 2008 Trial continuation
Transcript, page# 72 of the 23rd)
OFFICER MONK (#1399)/CREDIBILITY:
[640] Officer Monk (#1399) on page# 72 of the 23rd of July 2008 Trial
continuation Transcript respect to accused being placed in the rear seat of
police vehicle in the prone position and allege kicking of window, made this
statement;
“You were lying on your back at
that point with your hands underneath
you and you made a motion similar to a
bicycle kick from that lying position and kicked at the rear passenger window.
... you were handcuffed behind you - handcuffed behind. You were laying on your back. So you’re laying on your hands or slightly to
your side when you kicked the window.”
(Officer Monk
(#1399), 23rd of July 2008 trial continuation transcript, page# 104&105,
line 28-31, line 3-5 of the)
[641] Officer Monk (#1399) on page # 115 and 116 of his notes made this statement concerning the arrest of
the accuse;
“myself and PC Brown had to lift
him into the back seat. -
was placed face down -
he also kicked at the rear window - no damage”
(Officer Monk (#1399),
on page # 115 and 116 of his notes)
[642] Above all, Officer Monk,
the arresting officer contradict his own testimony under Oath in a court of
law. By stating in his own notes that the Applicant was placed face down. Which can be inferred to be the prone
position. In The Applicant’s humble
Opinion, this the most likely reason the Crown has not filed one single piece
of it’s incriminating material evidence or transcribed any of it oral or hand
written evidence. There is the issue of
perverting the course of justice, false return, legal fraud and perjury. This
is the reason why not one single
Affidavit of reasonable belief, has been filed by the Crown, in the
Applicant’s humble opinion. It would
constitute a negative oath; further perjury, by way of false oath.
Why, am I suffering?
Why is my beloved baby girls suffering?
Why am I still before this honourable court, for
almost three years?
Why is access to justice being impeded?
Why has the ends of justice not been met?
[643] Para [638], which claims
that Officer Monk lifted me out of the vehicle is absurd and an insult to a
reasonable prudent person’s intelligence.
I remember during my high school days, a favored game the girls use to
play. The young ladies would take a
chair place it a short distance from a wall.
Then stand in-front of the said chair; place the top of her head against
the wall. Reach down pick up the same
chair with both arms. Then she proceeded
to move her head away from the wall without moving her feet.
[644] Then the boys were invited
to complete the exact task using the aforementioned procedure. To all the observers and participants
amazement and the girls joyful resolve.
The boys were unable to complete the task in moving there head away from
the wall with the chair in hand.
[645] The difference in the male and female physiology;
allows for a lower center of gravity in the females case. Thereby allowing the girls to successfully
perform the above mentioned task and the boys to fail.
[646] The position, Officer Monk would have to assume is
similar to the one mentioned and I weigh much more than a chair !!
[647] If the crown does-not concur with this fact. I task
them to demonstrate that Officer Monk is capable of this impossible feet. But, Officer Monk has already testified that
he didn't do this questionable action.
[648] The statement of Officer Burd(1075), claiming that
Officer Monk lift the Applicant out of the vehicle when the Applicant,
allegedly, refuse to exit the vehicle.
this is a violation of the laws of physics, in my humble opinion.
[649] One can drag a person out. But it is self evident that it would be
extremely difficult to physically lift a
179 pound grown male from a seating position in a low riding vehicle. This becomes obvious when
one lifts there willing 40 pound child from the aforementioned position
with extreme difficulty. At least this
has been my experience with my four beloved baby girls.
The Officer is clearly lying!
[650] Para [639], [640], [641],
[642], [643] and [644] is contradicted by para [620], [623] and the 3D HQ, DAY
56 SECURITY VIDEO TAPE FOR GO 2007-70285 (exhibit 6b). This implies that at least four of the
officers were lying about the same central point. The video, is evidence to the contrary of
Officer Brown(1666), Officer Monk(1399),
Officer Burd(1075) and Officer Broughton (1079)’s given evidence of the accused
being on his back in the reclined position while trying to violently kick out
the back side window in a bicycle action motion in cruiser 3-126 (Officer
Brown’s vehicle).
[651] Now, just because it is
the case that these 4 Officers do-not contradict on this particular instance in
the GO 2007-70285, does-not mean they are telling the truth. In the aforementioned case, either all four
officers or lying or the video tape evidence for exhibit 6B is false. It is therefore, much more probable that the
four said Officers would be lying, than an objective machine which is void of
emotions or purpose. Even if it is the case that the video is false, it is the
Crowns disclosure and would be evidence against them. And if this is not enough
for reasonable doubt. Officer monk who
himself insisted that the Applicant was not placed in the prone position,
contradicts himself, and the other Officers explicitly by stating that the
accused was placed face down in Officer Brown’s cruiser.
This is error of fact and misapprehension of the
evidence by the learned trial judge.
Why am is the Applicant still standing before this
honourable Court?
CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE COURT / PUBLIC GOOD:
[652] The
Occupational Health and Safety Act,
which protects the public and the worker.
Seem in the Applicant’s humble opinion to be given very low priority and
concern where relevant training in the use of force training is concerned. There appears to be a very lacks
implementation and application of Occupational Health and Safety Acts for dangerous
weaponized chemicals and there respective protocols. Even-though there has been a number of
in-custody deaths surrounded the use of OC Spray, coupled with the prone
position.
[653]
The Health and Safety issues is a litmus test in the matter before
the Court to gauge the the level of concern
concerning the good of the public and the fairness and equality in the
application and enforcement of law.
Health and Safety Concerns:
[217]****************************************************************************************************
OFFICER CRUISER BADGE NO. LOCATION EXPERIENCE
DCst S. Broughton D-303 1079 3-CIB 10 years
•
OC-SPRAY (MK3)
-- 08 JAN 18 -- TRIAL TRANSCRIPT for
07-02500/07-02559
•
page 45 --
not certified to use OC-spay.
•
trained to
use OC-spray.
•
page 45 --
retrained annually to use OC-spray in the YRP use of force training program.
•
page 46 --
no MSDS OC-spray in D303.
•
page 57 --
officer Broughton declared that because, he did-not directly use OC-spray; so
asphyxiation wasn’t a consideration for him.
•
page 58 --
officer Broughton declared that the plaintiff would have to ask the officer in.
charge of the station; why the OC-spray in the claimant eyes was not washed
out.
•
OC-SPRAY (MK3)
-- 08 MAY 09 -- TRIAL TRANSCRIPT for 07-2500/07-02559
•
page 28 --
retrained for OC-spray 22nd week of Feb.
•
page 28 --
does not know what MK3 is.
•
page 29 --
does not know what a MSDS is.
***************************************************************************************************
OFFICER CRUISER BADGE NO. LOCATION EXPERIENCE
PCD Burd D-303 1075 3D 9 years
•
OC-SPRAY (MK3)
-- 08 MAY 09 -- TRIAL TRANSCRIPT -- for 07-02500/07-02559
•
page 88 --
trained to use OC-spray.
•
page 88 --
did not know the time of is retraining for OC-spray in the YRP use of force.
training program. He just knew it was 12
months previous to GO 07-70285. This
would be 27 March 2006.
•
page 88 --
did-not know what MK3 was.
•
page 88 --
incorrectly believe he was certified to use OC-spray.
•
there is
no such certification program in place with the York Regional Police Services.
•
there is
an annual retraining program for OC-spray, incorporated in the annually York.
Regional Police use of force training.
•
page 88 --
did not know if there was a MSDS for OC-spray in cruiser D303.
•
page 101
-- did not know the propellent MK3 uses.
•
page 102
-- claimed to have tried to decontaminate the plaintiff in the bull pen. But
cannot explain why the claimant was paraded pass the eyewash station
specifically designed for chemically decontamination, located in the sally
port..
•
page 103
-- did-not know what the MK3 information and warning documentation from
the distributor was .
•
page 106
-- did-not know what an MSDS for
OC-spray was.
*************************************************************************************************************************************
OFFICER CRUISER BADGE NO. LOCATION EXPERIENCE
PCE Beattie 3-126 1583 3A 3 years
•
OC-SPRAY (MK3)
-- 08 MAY 09 -- TRIAL TRANSCRIPT -- for 07-02500/07-02559
•
page 71 --
trained to use OC-spray.
•
page 72 --
retrained for OC-spray june 2007.
•
page 72 --
did-not know what MK3 was.
•
page 72 --
does-not have an MSDS for OC-spray in cruiser 3-126.
****************************************************************************************************
OFFICER CRUISER BADGE
NO. LOCATION EXPERIENCE
SSGT B. R. Ringler ??? 193 3D 30 years
•
OC-SPRAY (MK3)
-- 08 MAY 09 -- TRIAL TRANSCRIPT -- for 07-02500/07-02559
•
page 111
-- trained to use OC-spray.
•
page 111
-- retrained for OC-spray May 2007.
•
page 111
-- did-not know what MK3 was.
****************************************************************************************************
OFFICER CRUISER BADGE NO. LOCATION EXPERIENCE
SGT Williamson P-S35 1108 3A 9 years
•
OC-SPRAY (MK3)
-- 08 July 23 -- TRIAL TRANSCRIPT -- for 07-02500/07-02559
•
page 13 --
trained to use OC-spray.
•
page 13 --
declared OC-spray is at every district.
•
Asper YRP
there is no MSDS for OC-spray at the district; it is located at the warehouse
were OC-spray is stored.
•
page 13 --
did-not know if the MSDS for OC-spray was used in the annual use of force
training.
•
page 13 --
did-not know the brand of OC-spray used by York Regional Police Services is
MK3.
•
declares
that the minimum distance for the safe application of OC-spray is 3 feet.
****************************************************************************************************
OFFICER CRUISER BADGE NO. LOCATION EXPERIENCE
PC C. Brown 3-146 1666 3A 2.5 years
•
OC-SPRAY (MK3)
-- 08 July 23 -- TRIAL TRANSCRIPT -- for 07-02500/07-02559
•
page 60 --
trained to use OC-spray.
•
page 60 --
never read the MSDS for OC-spray.
•
page 61 --
never used the MSDS for OC-spray in the use of force training.
****************************************************************************************************
OFFICER CRUISER BADGE NO. LOCATION EXPERIENCE
PC J. Monk 3-135 1399 4A 5 years
•
OC-SPRAY (MK3)
-- 08 July 23 -- TRIAL TRANSCRIPT -- for 07-02500/07-02559
•
regrettably,
the plaintiff did not ask this officer any OC-spray questions.
****************************************************************************************************
OFFICER CRUISER BADGE NO. LOCATION EXPERIENCE
DC K. Stribbell ???? 529 3D 21 years
•
OC-SPRAY (MK3)
-- 08 July 23 -- TRIAL TRANSCRIPT -- for 07-02500/07-02559
•
regrettably,
the plaintiff did not ask this officer any OC-spray questions.
****************************************************************************************************
OFFICER CRUISER BADGE NO. LOCATION EXPERIENCE
officer X ?????? ????? ????? ???
•
OC-SPRAY (MK3)
-- 08 July 23 -- TRIAL TRANSCRIPT -- for 07-02500/07-02559
•
regrettably,
the plaintiff did not ask this officer any OC-spray questions.
****************************************************************************************************
[654] The Applicant does not know if the eight
officers involved in this matter for Information 07-02559&07-02500 are a good representation of the
York Regional Police. In statistics we
are taught that a sample composing of a
random sample of ten is a good statistical sample of the universal set. In the Applicant’s cross examination of these
officers which is well documented in the Hearing Transcript.
[655] Most of these officers didn't know what the
MSDS for OC spray was or could confirm if it was used as a part of there
training in there use of force training. Or where to locate the said MSDS in a
medical emergency. They could not even
identify it, the MSDS document for OC spray.
One officer did not complete is OC-spray retraining, which is allege to
be done annually, in the YRP annual use of force training. The courts
encouraged the Crown to disclose the MSDS for OC spray to the
Applicant.
[656] The officer-in-charge and the Crown failed
in this request to render to the Applicant the MSDS documentation even after
one week of searching. But instead gave
to me a document which was useful; But was not the MSDS for OC spray. It was not in the format demanded of the
Health and Safety Act. Furthermore, they failed
this action even with the help of the officer-in-charge health and safety
representative.
[657] This is a clear violation of the Health and
Safety Act which states that this information must be accessible to all upon
request. Not one of the Officers knew
were to locate the MSDS for OC spray.
The one Officer who though he knew, error in the location according to
the information The Applicant received through the freedom of information from
YRP. There is clearly a health and
safety hazard to the public and Officers (workers). Taking into consideration,
York Regional Police Services wide use of OC spray and the complication which
could arise from this dangerous chemical.
There is no mechanism set up to reliable qualify the officers in safe
OC-spray use, by way of independent certification.
[658] Asper 28 April 2008, Application Transcript on page 14;
“THE COURT: Now is there an MSDS, up, I take - what is that again? It’s a....
MR. FERRON: MSDS,
the material safety data sheet.
THE COURT: Okay.
Is there something like that for the -
the spray, do you know?
MS. GOODIER: The officer-in-charge, I’m only
speaking for him of course, and I believe he testified on the last occasion he
was unaware of where the documentation would be. He said he - he has sent an
e-mail to their health and safety representative for - for clarification regarding the MSDS
and OC spray, so I mean that’s all I can essentially say at this point
in time. I mean I think most of them, if they were asked, could - could tell
you what they generally - what the protocol is when somebody is pepper sprayed,
what they do.
THE COURTS: All right.
Can you find out if there is - and that’s a very specific thing - if there is an MSDS for the
York Regional Police for thee use of pepper spray and...”
(28 April 2008, Application Transcript,
on page 14, line 8-28)
[659] Asper May 9, 2008 Trial Transcript on page 1&2;
“MS. GOODIER: Thank you. I just wanted to advise Your Honour as well as Mr.
Ferron I did get a copy of the radio communication. I can advise I listened to
it. There is nothing pertaining to the concern that Mr. Ferron had however I
did make a copy so I will hand that to
him now. As well in relation to I believe one of the other issues was an MSDS
in relation to the OC spray?
THE COURT: That is the pepper
spray.
MS. GOODIER: That is the pepper
spray.
THE COURT: MSDS is an acronym
that he knows because he is the one who asked for it so what became of that if
anything?
MS. GOODIER: Well I do have...
there is
no specific MSDS in relation to the OC spray.
There
is an excerpt that my officer-in-charge has pulled out of their procedures in
relation to the use of force when they used the spray and I can hand that to
Mr. Ferron as well.”
(May 9, 2008 Trial Transcript, on page
1&2, line 21-33, line 5-14)
[660] Furthermore, on page 4, line 10 -15 of the May 9, 2008 Trial
Transcript is stated;
“THE COURT: Okay I just wanted to ask that to make sure I have got
that.
With respect to an MSDS pepper spray that
was answered today of course there is no such document according to the Crown
but
there is a use of force policy that is similar for - a document the police had
so that has been provided.”
(May
9, 2008 Trial Transcript, page 4, line 10 -15)
Health and Safety Act:
“ ’worker’ means any person who performs work or
supplies services for monetary compensation ....”
“
‘workplace’ means
any land, premises, location or thing at, upon, in or near which a worker
works.”
2.(1) This Act binds the Crown and applies to an
employee in service of the Crown or the agency; Board, commission or
corporation that exercises any function assigned or delegated to it by the
Crown.
33.(3) The employer shall provide a copy of an order made under subsection (1)
to the committee, health and safety representative and trade union, if any, and
shall cause a copy of the order to be posted in a conspicuous place in the
workplace where it is most likely to come to the workers who may be affected by the use,
presence or intended use of the biological chemical or physical agent or
combination of agent.
68.(2) The Attorney General or an
agent for the Attorney General may by notice to the clerk of the court having
jurisdiction in respect of an offence under this Act require that a provincial
judge preside over the proceeding.104
65.(2) Subsection (1) does not, by reason of
subsections 5(2) and (4) of the
Proceedings Against the crown Act, relieve the Crown of liability in respect of
a tort committed by a Director, an inspector or an engineer of the Ministry to
which it would otherwise be subject and
the Crown is liable under the Act for any such tort in a like manner as if
subsection(1) had not been enacted.
69. No prosecution under this Act Shall be
instituted more than one year after the last act or default upon which the
prosecution is based occurred.
(Occupational Health and Safety Act)
Note: section 33 in the HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT, is speaking about the
MSDS.
[661] The
Occupational Health and Safety Act,
which protects the public and the worker.
Seem in the Applicant’s humble opinion to be given very low priority and
concern where relevant training in the use of force training is concerned. There appears to be very lacks implementation
and application of Occupational Health and Safety Acts for dangerous weaponized
chemicals and there respective protocols.
Even-though there has been a number of in-custody deaths surrounded the
use of OC Spray, coupled with the prone position.
IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED, IS THER ANY REAL CONCERN SHOWEN FOR THE PUBLIC
GOOD OR THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF SOCIETY?
[662] Citations:
Name of the
Deceased: Nicholas
Blentzas
Dates of Inquest: March 2nd - 15th, 2005
Location of Inquest: Coroners Courts,
15 Grosvenor Street,
Toronto, Ontario
"Coroner's Comments:
... restraint in the prone position may increase
their risk of sudden death. This recommendation is intended to promote
education of police officers about excited delirium to assist them to recognize
it, avoid prolonged
restraint in the prone position if possible and arrange for emergency medical
treatment.”
James Edwards, M.D.
Presiding Coroner
March 21, 2005
(James Edwards, M.D. Presiding Coroner March
21, 200, Nicholas Blentzas)
SYSTEMIC RACISM/COLOURING THE PROCESS:
[663] Please see the sub heading
2.)EVIDENCE, in DOC - X APPLICATION
RECORD FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.
FRUITS-OF-THE-POISONOUS-TREE:
[664] Everything after the unlawful arrest would
be FRUITS-OF-THE-POISONOUS-TREE and
would be in question.
“fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine.
Criminal procedure. The rule that evidence derived from an illegal search,
arrest, or interrogation is inadmissible because the evidence (the “fruit”) was
tainted by the illegality (the “poisonous tree”).
(Blacks Law Dictionary,
page 693)
[665] Starting with the
questionable action of the Officers, which amounts to fraud and an attempted to
defeat the course of justice.
[666] To the subsequent
denial of disclosure of right, and suppression of evidence by various Crown’s counsel to defeat the
course of justice.
[667] Finally the unfairness
and inequity in the processing of the criminal matter where Crown
responsibilities are placed in the lap of the accused and judicial discretion
is heavy handed towards the accuse compliance, while the Crown is allowed to
roam freely while trampling over the rules of Criminal Proceedings.
[668] The Applicant
stands before the court with a want for a valid information and with a want for
an accused, since the Applicant was never determined to be the Accused.
[669] The injustices and
inequities perpetrated against the Applicant at the initial stages of the
criminal process in high likely hood poisoned the the process against the
Applicant, thereby breeding more abuse and inequalities against the Applicant.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, CROWN (Ms. Cheryl Goodier ):
[670] The Crown’s
Prosecutor is an agent of the Minister of Justice. And as such, she is bound by the Minister of
Justice Protocol and the public good. The ends of justice should be her creed and
truthfulness her shield. Social morality
and ethical justice demands this.
[671] When Ms. Goodier
prudently reviewed Information 07-02500&07 & 07-02559 before the
commencement of the summary conviction trial; she should have seen that the
face of the informations were not regular and the oath of reasonable honest
belief of personal knowledge was negative and constituted perjury by way
defective jurats. Determining that the
informants were void of personal knowledge of the allegations. She should have called
and examined the informants in chief; allowed them to be cross examined, while
holding the interest and integrity of society and the justice system close to
her heart. She should have been seized by the irregularities in the
Informations and seek the ends of justice.
[672] When Ms. Goodier
prudently reviewed the Day 56 3D HQ video tape before the commencement of the
summary conviction trial; Observing injustice and contradicting evidence with
the Officers notes. She should have been seized by the real evidence in the Day
56 3D HQ security surveillance video tape; to seek the ends of justice.
[673] When Ms. Goodier
prudently reviewed the 9-1-1 GO 2007-70285 before the commencement of the
summary conviction trial; she should have been seized by it’s incriminating
dialog and description of criminal actions; to seek the ends of justice.
[674] When Ms. Goodier
prudently reviewed the officers notes before the commencement of the summary
conviction trial; She should have been seized by their contradictions and
actions which defy the physical laws; to seek the ends of justice.
[675] When Ms. Goodier
witness the witnesses giving false testimonies under oath, misleading justice
and perverting the course of justice; she should have been seized by her
personal knowledge and bound by the protocol of her high public office; to seek
the ends of justice.
[676] When Ms. Goodier
lied or her officer-in-charge cause her to lie in Her Majesties honoured house
of truthfulness and justice. Asserting
false information as fact. She should have come forward on the record with
articulated reasons and apologies after the Applicant was kind enough to give
her documentation of the fact. She should have been seized by the said
perversion of justice. Separate herself from the root cause or root of the
false information. Do a prudent
investigation and separate fact from fiction; to seek the ends of justice.
[677] When the Applicant disclosed to Ms. Goodier the results of his drug test with
corresponding doctors note to explain the results. she should have been seized
by the documents; to seek the ends of justice
[678] When Ms. Goodier
witness DC Stribbell (529), the Officer tasked to investigate GO 2007-70285;
who swore a false oath that his testimony is truthful, his notes are accurate,
independent recollected and his own
personal honest knowledge. Then the said Officer with 21 years of law
enforcement experience, went about lying in a Court of Law under Oath;
• that the
applicant used crack cocaine in the past;
• that he was given this information of crack
cocaine use, personally by the Applicant’s wife;
• that he never read Officer Ringlers (193)
notes;
[679] Under further cross examination Officer Stribbell revealed that the
information of the Applicant’s pass crack cocaine use, was hearsay to the 3rd degree; mere gossip between 3 officers past off as real evidence in documents
disclosed to the courts including his notes in his memorandum note book.
[680] She should have paused her prosecution, discovered evidence and
separate fact from fiction, in seeking the truth. And there in obtain the ends
of justice.
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, CROWN (MR.
WESTGATE):
[681] On the 28th of
April 2009, at the Newmarket Courthouse at 50 Eagle St; a considerate and
understanding Justice of the Peace Commissioned the Applicant’s revised
Affidavit of reasonable belief , contained within his document titled; NOTICE of APPEAL for INMATE APPEAL, which he then filed and served to the
required parties.
[682] On April 28, 2009 the
Applicant filed and served an amendment to the appeal in the form of a NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR INMATE APPEAL,
in the said document is a REQUISITION form by way of FORM 4E; requesting a copy of 3D HQ Day 56 security surveillance tape for
GO 07-70285.
[683] On May 04, 2009, The Ontario Superior Court Justice at the
Newmarket location, ordered the Crown;
1.
to assist
the Applicant in obtaining a copy of 3D
HQ Day 56 security surveillance tape for GO 2007-70285;
2. to
obtain a copy of the missing
exhibit, in the form of an audio CD of the communication transmission log
between PS35 (officer Williamson (1108)) and YRP Dispatch for GO 2007-70285;
[684] The Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, declares
that the Applicant’s
motion will-not be heard
on that day and adjourn APPLICATION
for DIRECTION for INMATE APPEAL, to
June 1, 2009, the Appeal Hearing Date.
TAKE NOTE: The
Crown’s Attorney, namely Mr. Westgate
stated openly in the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, that he has a Crown prosecutor
facing civil litigation. He did-not
state that The Applicant was the one who filed the Civil suite, but it is
reasonable to infer that this fact is probable common knowledge at Newmarket
Courthouse;
“12.3.2
Improper attempts to influence judicial officer
In a contested cause or
matter, Crown counsel shall not attempt, or knowingly allow anyone else to
attempt, to influence the decisions or actions of a judicial officer, directly
or indirectly, except by means of open persuasion as an advocate.”
(The Federal
Prosecution Service DESKBOOK,
section 12.3.2)
[685] On May 15, 2009 while the Applicant was
retrieving a copy of the EXHIBIT LIST
CRIMINAL for Information 07-02559, from Ms.
Christine Russo, the Jury Exhibit Clerk;
the Affiant inquired about the status of a copy of 3D HQ Day 56 security
surveillance tape for GO 2007-70285. She
informed him that the
Crown had ordered a copy
of the aforementioned video tape.
[686] On June 01, 2009, The
Ontario Superior Court of Justice at the Newmarket location, reaffirmed and
ordered the Crown for the second time;
1.
to assist
the Applicant in obtaining a copy of 3D
HQ Day 56 security surveillance tape for GO 2007-70285;
2.
to obtain
a copy of the missing exhibit, in
the form of an audio CD of the communication transmission log between PS35
(Officer Williamson (1108)) and YRP Dispatch for GO 2007-70285;
3.
the Court
added a new order, for the Crown to Order and pay for the remaining
Transcripts of evidence;
[687] The presiding Justice for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at
the Newmarket location, asserts that the Applicant’s motion Would not be heard! on that day and adjourn it to June 1, 2009 the Appeal Hearing date.
The Motion for Direction
(returnable on May 4, 2009), APPLICATION for DIRECTION for
INMATE APPEAL, Adjourn by the
Chief Justice Bryant from May 4, 2009,
to June 1, 2009.
The aforementioned was not done until the
Applicant Advised the court that it was a
violation of his rights not to hear his motion. So it was adjourned to
the Appeal Hearing date with the comment; “be prepared to argue.”
[688] The presiding Justice for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
declared the Applicant to be
indigent byway of cross examining the Appellant under oath.
[689] On June 29, 2009, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice at the Newmarket location, reaffirmed and ordered
the Crown for the third time;
1.
to assist
the Applicant in obtaining a copy of 3D
HQ Day 56 security surveillance tape for GO 2007-70285;
2.
to obtain a copy
of the missing exhibit, in the form of an audio CD of the communication log
between PS35 (officer Williams (1108)) and YRP Dispatch for GO 2007-70285;
3.
to obtain
the remaining Transcripts of evidence for the second time;
The Applicant advised the Crown and Court that Informations 07-02500 and 07-02559 were defective byway of a false
oath which constituted perjury.
[690] The presiding Justice for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
advised;
“that the matter before the court was in
desperate need of CASE
MANAGEMENT.”
[691] The Applicant advises the Court and Crown, that there is a mistake in the exhibit list byway of
Missing material evidence.
[692] The Applicant advised the Crown and Court that that Informations 07-02500 and 07-02559 were
defective byway of a false oath which constituted perjury.
[693] On July 20, 2009, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice at the Newmarket location, reaffirmed and
ordered the Crown for the forth time;
1.
to assist
the Applicant in obtaining a copy of 3D
HQ Day 56 security surveillance tape for GO 2007-70285;
2.
to obtain a copy
of the missing exhibit, in the form of an audio CD of the communication log
between PS35 (officer Williams (1108)) and YRP Dispatch for GO 2007-70285;
3.
to obtain
the remaining Transcripts of evidence for the third time.
[694] The Applicant advised the Crown and Court that Informations 07-02500 and 07-02559 were defective byway of a false
oath which constituted perjury.
[695] Mr.
Westgate for the Crown either knowingly or
unknowingly, successfully argued under false pretense; inferring that the
inability of the Applicant to bring the April
28, 2008 Application Transcript, to the Crown’s Office or disclose the
said Transcript to the Crown was delaying the Appeal. He should have known or aught to have known
that his actions and acts of omissions was an attempt to defeat the course of justice
and steal apart of the integrity of the administration of justice, thereby
robing the public good of a fair and equitable justice.
[696] He should have known or aught to have known that his actionable
wrong constituted legal fraud and an attempt to pervert the course of justice,
worked to deny the Applicant his legal rights, life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness.
12.3 Guidelines
12.3.1 Business or personal
relationship with a judicial officer
Crown counsel shall not appear before a judicial officer when the
lawyer has a business or personal relationship with that officer which might
reasonably be perceived to affect the officer's impartiality.
12.3.2
Improper attempts to influence judicial officer
In a contested cause or
matter, Crown counsel shall not attempt, or knowingly allow anyone else to
attempt, to influence the decisions or actions of a judicial officer, directly
or indirectly, except by means of open persuasion as an advocate.
12.3.3 Communicating with
judicial officer in contested matters
In a contested cause or matter, Crown counsel shall not communicate,
directly or indirectly, with a judicial officer, except:
* in open court;
* with the consent of, or in the presence
of, all other parties or their
counsel;
* in writing, provided a copy is given at the
same time to the other parties or their counsel; or
* in ex parte matters, as permitted by law.
12.3.4 Meetings in relation
to administrative matters
In discussing with judges and court officials matters of government
policy that could affect the administration of the courts, Crown counsel shall conduct themselves in such a way as to avoid any
possible suggestion that they are improperly attempting to influence or exert
pressure on the courts or individual judges in the course of exercising
their judicial functions.
12.3.5 Referral to the
Committee on Contacts with the Courts
Where there is doubt about whether a particular contact or action
involving a Crown counsel is appropriate, counsel shall refer the question to
the prosecution group head. If there is still doubt, the question shall be
referred to the Department of Justice's Committee on Contact with the Courts.
1 See Part I, Chapter 3, “The
Role of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General in Developing and
Enforcing the Criminal Law”.
(The Federal
Prosecution Service DESKBOOK,
section 12, page 90)
[697] He went as far
as advising the Applicant to photo copy
the complete April 28, 2008 Application Transcript, and
distributing them. Even though it is copy written material and is not certified
to be material evidence nor is it considered to be evidence by the Courts,
according to the Evidence Act.
[698] Moreover, a few
months before, the Applicant witness Mr. Westgate successfully argue against
and prosecute an accused allege to have broken a multitude of movies copy
rights, not to be released on bond ($60 000). And here he was advising the Applicant to do the same illegal act, in
my humble opinion.
“Photocopies of this transcript are not certified and have not been
paid for unless they bear the original signature of the reporter’s name
above, and accordingly are in direct
violation of Ontario Regulations 587/91, Court of Justice Act, January 1, 1990.
”
[699] Furthermore, the transcript in question, was
in the Crown’s Office, (in the Crown’s possession), since 3rd of
July 2009. The aforementioned Crowns arguments,
induced the Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, to issue a Court order against the
Applicant.
[700]
ONTARIO
REGULATION 587/91
COURT REPORTERS AND COURT MONITORS
1.
In this Regulation, “court monitor” means court electronic equipment
operator. O. Reg. 587/91, s. 1.
2.
(1) Court reporters and court monitors shall be paid the following fees for
attendances and services requested by an official of the Ministry of the
Attorney General and performed on or after the 1st day of January, 1990:
{...}
1. For a single copy of a transcript of evidence for the purpose of reproduction in an appeal to the Court of Appeal, per page
$3.75
2. For copies of transcripts, including
transcript of charge to jury and transcript of oral judgment, but not including
a transcript under paragraph 1 or a transcript for use in an appeal book,
i. for the first copy, per
page $3.20
ii. for each additional
copy, per page $0.55
O. Reg. 587/91, s. 3.
4. A copy of a transcript of evidence ordered by
a judge for the judge’s own use shall be paid for by the Province of
Ontario. O. Reg. 587/91, s. 4....
CROWN (MR.
COSTAIN):
[701] Mr. Costin and Mr. Tait’s RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES,
is bound with a navy blue (cover stock) covers, with a rough matrix patter. The
said matrix patter seemed to have caused problems in the printing, so the
printed information on the front and back covers are illegible. Their appears to be no back page for the said
document; the last page (page 15) of TAB 1 which appears to be the RESPONDENT’S
FACTUM is dated the 30th day
of September, 2009 and signed by
Jeffrey Constain in blue ink:
Jeffrey Constain
Assistant Crown Attorney
Office of the Crown
Attorney
50 Eagle Street West
Newmarket, Ontario
L3Y 6B1
[702] Their is no indication of
Mr. Constain legal licence to practice law nor a disclosing of his LSUC number.
[703] The Courts copy of the RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES,
is stamped October 2, 2009 on the
back cover.
[704] The RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/
BOOK OF AUTHORITIES, was left on Friday,
October 2nd, in the late evening, even though the Appeal Hearing was on, Monday, October 5th
at 2:15 p.m.. The Applicant was not home to receive service! It was
signed on September 30th by Jeffrey Costain, Assistant Crown
Attorney. It was delivered by;
A &B COURIER;
Rush (90 mins) Direct
service;
Control# 274 695 3;
SN# 308 899 2 --not
certain;
Pick up Driver # 244;
Acct # 110;
Date: 10/02/2009;
The Applicant was not home
to receive it!!!
[705] This is 0 (zero)
business before the Appeal Hearing (Monday,
October 5th, 2009), and
almost one month after the Appellant filed
his AMENDED APPELLANT’S FACTUM
FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559), on September
4th, 2009.
[706] The Applicant tried to put
the aforesaid fact on record at the Appeal Hearing before the Honourable
Justice Healey, but Her-Worship directed the Applicant to start the Appeal
arguments. Pursuant to MARTIN’S ONTARIO CRIMINAL
PRACTICE;
“The specific format of factums is
set out in Rules 40.13 and 40.14. The respondent’s factum must be filed
with the clerk not later than 15 days after receipt of the appellant’s factum
and no later than 7 days before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal
under rule 40.10(1)”
(MARTIN’S ONTARIO CRIMINAL PRACTICE 2004, page R/145)
[707] Furthermore, contrary to Rule 21(3) which requires the
respondent factum to be filed at least 10
days before the week in which the appeal
is to be heard. Again, the RESPONDENT'S
FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES, was left on Friday, October 2nd, 2009 in the late evening while the
Applicant was not home, even though the Appeal Hearing was on, Monday, October 5th ,2009 at 2:15 p.m..
It was signed on September 30th,
2009 by Jeffrey Costain, Assistant Crown Attorney.
[708] The Rules of CRIMINAL PRATICE directs that
documents served byway of courier services is deemed to have been served the
next business day. Which would put the date of service of the RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES,
to be Monday, October 5th ,2009.
Pursuant to rules of Civil Procedure;
SERVICE
ON LAWYER OF RECORD
16.05
(1) Service of a
document on the lawyer of record of a party may be made,
(a) by mailing a copy to the lawyel's office;
.
(b) by leaving a copy with a lawyer or
employee in the lawyer's office;
(c) by depositing a
copy at a document exchange of which the lawyer is a member or subscriber, but service under this clause is effective
only if the document or a copy of it and the copy deposited are date stamped by
the document exchange in the presence of the person depositing the copy;
{...}
(e) by sending a
copy to the lawyer's office by courier; or
{...}
. O. Reg. 575/07, s. 18.
(2)
Service
of a document by depositing a copy at a document exchange under clause (1)(c)
is effective on the day following the
day on which it was deposited and date stamped, unless that following day
is a holiday, in which case service is effective on the next day that is not a holiday.
(2.1) Service of a
document by sending a copy by courier under clause
(l)(e) is effective on the second day following the day the courier was given
the document, unless that second day is a holiday, in which case service is effective on the next day that
is not a holiday.
O. Reg. 351194, s. 1(2).
[709] Jeffrey Costain,
Assistant Crown Attorney filed the RESPONDENT'S
FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES, with the Registrar of the SUPERIOR COURT OF
JUSTICE, CENTRAL EAST REGION on Friday, October
2nd, 2009. Hence, Mr.
Costain filed the the RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES,
with the Registrar before he served the Applicant the said document.
[710] What constituted
Mr. Costain’s proof of service and how did he convince the Registrar that he
already served the Applicant before the filing of his RESPONDENT'S FACTUM/ BOOK OF AUTHORITIES?
[711] The
aforementioned action is deceitful and served to diminish the Applicant’s
rights to a fair and equitable Appeal of Right. Thus the actionable wrong
wilfully committed by Mr. Jeffrey
Costain, Assistant Crown Attorney is a fraudulent action.
Filing and
Service
6.08 (1) Every respondent
shall prepare a “Respondent’s Factum”
and shall file in the court office in the place where the application is to be
heard one copy with proof of service thereof on all other parties and persons who have been granted the right to be
heard in the proceedings.
Time for Delivery
(2) The respondent’s
factum shall be delivered to the court office where the application is to be
heard within 7 days after service of the
applicant’s factum, with proof of service on all other parties and persons
who have been granted the right to be heard in the proceedings, and not less than 3 days before the week in
which the application is scheduled to be heard.
[712] Pursuant to Mr. Jeffrey Costain, for
the Crown;
“Turning to the charge of resisting the officers, considering all the
evidence the Appellant was properly convicted. While the evidence of the officers varied in some details, on the whole it
showed the Appellant to be actively resisting a lawful arrest. His passivity came later-his active
resistance at the time of the arrest was not something of which the Appellant
had a recollection.
{...}
There is no air of reality to the various allegations
of Charter Breaches by the police
The trial judge was aware of a possible breach of the Appellant’s section 9 right against arbitrary detention, and addressed it in his reasons.
He found no evidence to support such a
claim: The Appellant was lawfully stopped based on information received by the
police from the civilian, the subsequent investigation
was brief, and the circumstances of his detention beyond that point appeared self-imposed (and in any event
did not affect the allegations before the court)
There is also no basis to allege racial profiling. The driving observed
by the civilian witness, and his 9-1-1
call, occurred prior to his viewing the driver. The Police conducted a traffic stop based on that call. There was no
evidence of racism playing any role whatsoever.
The Appellant now alleges breaches of his Charter rights under section
7, 15, 8, 10, and 11. While the arrest, conducted in a proper fashion
considering the Appellant’s own actions. While
the charge upon which the Appellant was arrested was later withdrawn, that does
not affect the initial validity of the arrested. There was ample grounds
for the arrest, and considering the Appellant’s resistance, the force used to
effect the arrest was reasonable.
Further, there was no search or seizure that led to any substantive
evidence at trial. While there was a warrantless
search of the van incident to arrest, no
evidence was found to or tendered as a result of that search. No breath or
bodily samples were taken from the Appellant.
The Appellant was informed of
his rights to counsel, and did not exercise them-and in any event, no
substantive evidence collected after the rights to counsel was relevant to the
charges before the court. There were no police actions in breach of section 11
of the Charter.
There is no air of reality to the various allegations
of Crown misconduct or Charter breaches
{...}
Appellant also appears to allege a defective information. However no
defects are apparent: He also alleges he
was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the officer who swore the
information. Such a cross-examine the officer who swore to the information.
Such a cross-examination would not appear to have any relevance or meaning.
”
(Jeffrey Costain for the Crown, RESPONDENT’S FACTUM, SUPERIOR COURT
OF JUSTE APPELLATE COURT)
[713] Pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada;
137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be
used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any
means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.
139.(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 and liable
to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
“12.3.2
Improper attempts to influence judicial officer
In a contested cause or matter,
Crown counsel shall not attempt, or knowingly allow anyone else to attempt, to
influence the decisions or actions of a judicial officer, directly or
indirectly, except by means of open persuasion as an advocate.”
(The Federal
Prosecution Service DESKBOOK,
section 12.3.2)
[714]
“(d) endeavour or allow anyone else to
endeavour, directly or indirectly, to influence the decision or action of a
tribunal or any of its officials in any case or matter by any means other than
open persuasion as an advocate,”
(Rule 4, PROFESSIONAL
RULES OF CONDUCT)
CROWN (MR.
TAIT):
[715] Pursuant to Mr. Tait;
“MR. TAIT: Yes.
Having not raised them at
trial, and I think my colleague addresses that in the factum, that there is no
air of reality to the constitutional issues raised on appeal.
Ordinarily, when an accused is represented at trial if a Charter issue
is not raised on the evidence available the appellant would be precluded from
raising it on appeal. In this case, being self represented at trial and
self-represented on appeal, the court, in it’s discretion I think, may consider
the constitutional issues raised by Mr. Ferron in his capacity as an
unrepresented litigant. He may not be aware of that procedure, but in my
respectful submission if you do consider, though, on the evidence -
on the record of evidence
from the court below, there is evidence, as Mr. Costain points out in our
factum, no air of reality to any of the issues raised by Mr. Ferron. By way of
example, he raises section 8, unreasonable search and seizure,
and there wasn’t anything following the events which give rise to the
offences which would engage section 8. No evidence was seized by the police in
this investigation.
So Ordinarily, Your Honour,
if not raised at trial there is always the rare exception, I suppose, that an
appellate court may entertain a constitutional application, say if competency
of counsel is being raised and wasn’t. That might be one example. But in this
case, since he’s unrepresented, you may, at your discretion, consider it, but
in my respectful submission there is no merit to that - to those applications.”
(Mr. Tait for the Crown, October 14, 2009 Application
Transcript for 07-02559, page 49-50, line 10-30)
[716] All 1000+ pages
of this document as well as the
following citations from the real evidence as witnessed by the
Courts will show in a practical way the
validity of Mr. Tait’s statements:
“MR.
FERRON: Okay. Well, I don't know. I'm
under appearance when you go to Court and stuff
that you're seeking the truth. You want to
arrive at the truth. I mean, you know, you can
render your justice in a fair and equitable
way.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. FERRON: And - well, in order for me to give
full answer and defend myself as well, I
need
accurate and I need timely disclosure. I
need
some questions - things - I need - I need
access
to material that I can't have, that the
police
would have access to or the Crown or the
Court
would have access to. And when I asked for
the
material, either it's not coming or - or I'm
being sidetracked or - or it's not true. For
example, like Officer Monk being - with his
explanation of being north of Highway 9 on
the
28th of March. Well, for me, I would like to
have the information that I asked for
originally.”
(June
17, 2008, Application Transcript for 07-02500/07-02559, page 2-3)
[717]
“THE
COURT: Does the Crown's disclosure not set
out who searched his vehicle? I'll just ask
what comes of it.
MR. FERRON: Well, I mean, if the vehicle was
searched, I mean, it's illegal search.”
{...}
THE COURT: So you articulated a reason. I
think that's, again, that's a trial issue
really. It's up to the Crown to show what
steps
were taken by the officer at what different
times. It's not necessarily up to you to
prove
that the vehicle was searched or searched in
any
particular manner. You have the right to
cross-
examine all of that.
{...}
THE COURT: It sounds to me, Mr. Ferron, that
the person you most need to hear from on all
of
these issues coming up is the very next
witness.
I've look at the application; I'm treating it as
an application for a stay of proceedings even
though it's not exclusively set out. I'm going
to keep the materials with me if you don't
mind,
because I think there are things that you're
probably going to refer to in your case and
also
perhaps in your final submissions. But in my
view, the applicant hasn't shown on the balance
of probabilities that there's a breach of the
Charter rights or that there's a common law
abuse of process that would require a stay of
proceedings. So I'm going to dismiss the
application,...”
(June
17, 2008, Application Transcript for 07-02500/07-02559, page 23-26)
[718]
“Anyways, I want to speak about the
Charter of Rights. Section 15(1) “Every
individual is equal before and under the law
and
has the right to the equal protection and
equal
benefit of the law without discrimination
and, in
particular, without discrimination based on
race,
nationality or ethnic origin, colour,
religion,
sex, age or mental or physical
disability". And
that was violated by Officer Burd, badge number
1075. When he called and labelled me an
“asshole”, a “crack head”, before any
investigation into the complainant’s allegation
was made. They didn’t even get a statement. I
was treated by the officers in question as not
belonging as a part of the Keswick community and a
stranger who has come to their habitat to do wrong
or unlawful deeds. And you can tell by the
checked my driver's license they can see I live
ten minutes away. At this part of the event, when
this occurred, all that was known about me
is the
description given by the complainant, male, black,
in his thirties, clean-shaven, wearing
glasses.
Officer Stribbell, badge number 529, defamed
my
character, pre-judged me by alleging I used
crack
cocaine in the past without any material
proof or
witness in his notes on page 77. And, again,
in
the show case hearing report document. Section 9,
"Everyone has the right not to be
arbitrarily
detained or imprisoned". Okay, my
Charter of
Rights and Freedom, section 9 it was
violated,
okay, by the officers in question when I was
detained for 15 to 20 minutes and not
given any
reason or justification for the detainment before
being arrested for driving with influence. I was
not informed of my rights to counsel and caution
nor allowed to execute my rights. I’ve looked up
precedents and stuff for the Supreme Court
but
because of the time restraints I can't cite
...
{...}
WAYNE FERRON: Okay, Section 49.5(1), Arrest
"A
peace officer may arrest, without warrant,
peace officer. Mr. Monk, when he was
arresting me,
and the print out that I gave
you, that was from the York Regional Police.
He
did the first part, he said I was under arrest for
DWI, but he didn't read me my rights. He didn't
read me my rights.
{...}
WAYNE FERRON: No, doesn't the Charter of
Rights,
section 8 "Everyone has the right to be secure
against unreasonable search or seizure”
{...}
WAYNE FERRON: Well, I don't know what the remedy
is. Also when I was detained, when you are
detaining a person, you are supposed to read
them
their rights. You read them their rights when
they are arrested, but when they are
detained you
are also supposed to read them their rights,
when
they are detained. Okay. Officer Monk didn't do
that. Okay, so Section 10(b), not
informed of
rights to counsel. And Section 7, okay, that was
deprived of mine, and if I have been
deprived of
mine, that means my four children have been
deprived of theirs and so has my wife. Okay.
I
am deprived of it because I am detained by a
peace
bond with in accurate information on it
about me
taking drugs in the past. So I can’t move
around to seek
better employment, make more money so I
can feed my children. Incidentally, it’s
hard to
even go to an employee that doesn’t want a
background check.
If you go to a temporary employee they want
a background check.
Usually when people make mistakes they say they are sorry
instead of pursuing it to an end just to prove or
to get a conviction at all costs. They sacrifice the truth.
They sacrifice people. Now also this
case has taken a toll. There's casualty, a
casualty of ,my children, my wife because I
have to
be doing this I can't bring enough money in.
So
there is greener pastures out there. “
(Wayne Ferron’ Summation, September 5,
2008, Application Transcript for 07-02500/07-02559, page 36-40)
[719]
“Q.
Who read me my rights?
A.
I did not, but I received information that it was Constable Brown.
{...}
THE COURT: Okay. Well this - are you
asking what the standard wording of the rights to counsel is, if there is one,
or if - I’m not sure what you’re asking because this officer didn’t read the rights to you as far as he recollects.”
(S. Broughton - Cr-ex, January 18, 2008,
Trial Transcript for 07-02500/07-02559, page 55)
[720]
“Q.
Do you know who searched the vehicle?
A.
No.
Q.
Thank you. Did you at any time read me my rights?
A.
No.
Q.
Okay did you witness anyone reading me my rights?
A.
No I did not.”
(E. Beattie - Cr-ex, May 9, 2008, Trial
Transcript for 07-02559, page 80)
[721]
“Q.
Did you read me my rights to counsel and caution?
A.
Pardon me?
Q.
Did you read me my rights to counsel and
caution?
A.
No I did not.”
(D. Burd - Cr-ex, May 9, 2008, Trial
Transcript for 07-02559, page 95)
[722]
“Q.
Did you read me my rights?
A.
I didn’t.
{...}
Q.
Did you witness anyone reading - reading me my rights?
A.
No.”
(R. Williamson - Cr-ex, July 23, 2008,
Trial Transcript for 07-02559, page 25)
[723]
“Q.
...when I was in the back of your cruiser
you said that you - you read me my rights.
A.
That’s correct.
Q.
Yes. About how long did this take?
A.
Only took a minute. You were...
Q.
A minute?
A.
You didn’t say anything in response to
it, so I didn’t have to write anything further down.”
(C. Brown - Cr-ex, July 23, 2008, Trial
Transcript for 07-02559, page 58)
[724] Asper Typed Officers Notes, states;
“male continued to be uncooperative male carried into cell advised PC Brown read Rights to
Counsel/Caution and was unresponsive - one in cells
male began taking clothes off and acting irrationally
and was moved to bullpen.
Opportunity for lawyer/D.C. suspended
until male no longer under influence - re
his personal safety.”
(Officer
Broughton, Typed Officers Notes, page 30, at 00:24)
[725]
“MS.
GOODIER: Just I’ve, uh, and again
this is the
response that I received from my
officer-in-charge.
He indicates there are no specific timeframes to
providing rights to counselor waiting for a person
to acknowledge that they understand. The
provisions under 10(b) would override anything our
Service would put in writing anyway, because
10(b)
says that the officers have a duty to provide
rights to counsel and inform accused of those
rights. It also states we are to
accommodate
the execution of these rights without delay. Common
law says that officer safety, the individual
situation, etcetera, will dictate what the
courts
deem reasonable. Mr. Ferron was provided his
rights to counsel at 12:22 a.m. There - there is
no set - I mean once you're arrested, you're
-
you're given your rights to counsel. I - I
don't
really know how to - and I know that the
question
goes on to ask about the - the - the Charter and -
like there's no set - it's not like an officer will
sit there and wait, you know, five minutes to make
sure that someone answers.”
(Ms. Goodier, April 28,
2008, Application Transcript for 07-02500/07-02559, page 11)
CROWN (MS.
STUART):
[726] According to the Crown at the Newmarket court house concerning the
Affiant Appeal as of right to the SUPERIOR COURT;
“Absent a timely
filing of the necessary transcripts the Crown position on June 1, 2009 will be
that the appeal be dismissed.”
(Doug Kasko, Letter from the Assistant
Crown Attorney)
On the 6th of November 2009,
Riun Shandler, Inmate Appeals Administrator, sent a response to the Applicant
concerning his Appeal to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO (C 51190);
“Your non-inmate in person Notice
of Appeal was filed at the Court of Ap-
peal on November 2nd, 2009.
{..}
At the time your Notice of
Appeal was filed, you were required to file a court reporter's certificate or,
alternatively, proof that the transcripts have been ordered. If you have
not done that, please do so as soon as possible and provide our office with a
copy. If transcripts are not ordered in
a timely fashion, the Crown may seek to have this appeal dismissed.
If for any reason you wish to
abandon this appeal, please fill out a Notice of Abandonment, a copy of which
is enclosed for your convenience. Please sign it in the presence of your probation officer or your lawyer
and mail it to the Court of Appeal. Please ask you probation officer or lawyer
to fax a copy to me immediately to close your file.”
(Riun Shandler, Letter from the Ministry
of The Attorney General, Crown Law Office,
Inmate Appeals Administrator)
[727] The Crown’s initial position was to question weather the appearances
was recorded and if Transcripts could be produced for the hearings. Moreover,
the crown incorrectly believed without and investigation that the hearings in
question were not recorded. This was discussed in detailed Motion for Direction Application (M38387), on the 27th of January 2010, at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.
[728] On the 12th of
December 2009, the Applicant went to Newmarket Court House, and ordered all
the necessary Transcripts he was requesting. But, could not pay for them.
(see Tab 2, MANDAMUS
MOTION RECORD, page 1 to 29)
[729] He made copies of all 29 “ORDER
FOR TRANSCRIPTS-NEWMARKET” order forms, bundled it under tab 31 in his AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAP OR APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(C51190), then served and filed it on the 18th of January 2010.
[730] This simple action, which is documented fact which can be confirmed
by the Newmarket Court Reporters renders the Crown’s initial position on
availability of Transcripts on the 27th of January 2010, to be irrelevant. Since the Applicant demonstrated in a
practical way there availability.
[731] The Crown’s initial position on the production of the
Transcripts, was that it would take a
long time, for the location and transcription of all the Transcripts being
requested by the Applicant. Moreover, the Crown incorrectly believed without
investigation, that the identification, transcription of recordings and
production of Transcripts would take up to two years.
[732] The Applicant notified the Court Reporter’s of his Motion for
Direction to request the Crow pay for the production of the Transcripts because
he was financially handicap by his financial destitution. For example, one of
the court reporter’s response on Jan 18
& 25, 2010 byway of email;
“Dear Mr. Ferron,
I had left a message
for you on January 8th regarding the
amount of appeal
transcripts being $607.50. I asked
for confirmation of your request and I would like to again ask for your
conformation.”
“ {...} I trust that
you will let me know the result
and I will invoice the party responsible for payment. I assure you that the transcripts are available as
soon as payment can be arranged”
(Tab 3, MOTION RECORD,
page 1 and 2)
[733] The other court reporters responded in a similar fashion. This can
be confirmed by calling the court reporters to give evidence. This should lay
to rest the length of time it would take to produce Transcripts of hearings at
the Newmarket court house.
[734] Again the simple
action of ordering the relevant Transcripts, which is documented fact which can
be confirmed by the Newmarket Court Reporters renders the Crown’s initial
position on availability production time of Transcripts on the 27th of January 2010, to be
irrelevant. Since the Applicant demonstrated in a practical way there
availability and inferred the short time line for there production.
[735] Motion for Direction, with Joanne Stuart for Crown Counsel:
On the 27th of
January 2010, the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, heard the Applicant’s Motion for Direction Application
(M38387). The Presiding Justice ordered the Crown to pay for, file and serve all the necessary Transcripts along
with the Book Of Appeal.
The Affiant also requested in his MOTION FOR DIRECTION, application, a court appointed, CASE MANAGEMENT OFFICER, to oversee and prudently
manage the Appeal. The Affiant felt that this would optimize the efficiency of
the Appeal process and avoid the abuses of process he experience first hand at
Newmarket Court House. Which would go a
far way in insuring a fair and equitable Appeal or access to the ends of
justice. For some reason this was not implemented!
[736] Motion (M38706), with Joanne Stuart for
Crown Counsel:
the NOTICE OF MOTION
(M38706), returnable on the 30th of April, 2010, was filed and served on April 9, 2010;
[737] the Applicant MOTION
FACTUM (M38706), MOTION ARGUMENTS (M38706) and MOTION RECORD (M38706), returnable on the 30th of April, 2010, was filed and served on April 29, 2010;
[738] The Applicant and the Crown agreed to adjourn the motion for two
weeks, off the record, to give the Crown time to review the material. The Crown initially wanted an indefinite
adjournment, but the Applicant reconsidered this option to not be useful
and unreasonable and later settled for two weeks adjournment which was more
than reasonable;
[739] On April 29, 2010, the
Applicant observed a male associate of Joanne Stuart, whom he had met earlier
with Joanne Stuart, at the Crown
Counsel at the Ministry of The Attorney
General’s Office. The aforementioned person, Joanne Stuart’s, male associate was filing a copy of the APPLICANT’S
FACTUM, which she indicated was an extra copy from the Federal or
Canadian Attorney General’s Office. The filing of the APPLICANT’S
FACTUM with attention to a single judge, to help in perfecting the
Appeal. The APPLICANT’S FACTUM was
longer than the approved length and not double space, so it needed the approval
of a presiding judge. The APPLICANT’S
FACTUM, was served on the 17th of March 2010 on the Federal and Provincial Crown’s Office; the said APPLICANT’S
FACTUM, was refused on the corresponding date at the ONTARIO COURT OF
APPEAL for technical reasons.
[740] On the 14th of May, 2010
MOTION Hearing, With Joanne Stuart for Crown Counsel:
The presiding justice did not have access to the following
documents;
the Applicant’s MOTION
RECORD (M38706) which was filed;
the Applicant’s MOTION
FACTUM (M38706) which was filed;
the Applicant's MOTION ARGUMENTS (M38706) which was filed;
the APPLICANT’S FACTUM which the male
associate of Joanne Stuart, appeared
to have filed for the Crown. The
hearing was partially conducted with the Crown’s and Applicant’s copy of the
materials filed for the hearing. The Applicant does not know what to say about
missing filed court documents for a hearing, other than they were missing at the
hearing and the presiding justice did not have privy to them for the conducting
of the relevant hearing.
[741] The motion
(M38706) for C51190 was adjourned
without a returnable date. In short, it was indefinitely adjourned. Which is
what the Crown originally wanted, off the
record in its private discussions with
the Applicant.
[742] It should be noted that Motion (M 38706) is still in adjournment without the disclosing of outstanding disclosure owed to the
Applicant and denied by the respective Crowns from 2007 to 2010 and now
2011. Motion M(38706) is indefinitely
adjourned with no returnable date. Furthermore, the Applicant has been to the
Registrar on many occasions to reconvene the M38706, with utter failure. It is
like M38706 is caged behind impregnable bars with the keys to its final
resolution thrown away.
[743] Typed version of handwritten endorsement
R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)
Laskin J.A.
May 14, 2010
Mr. Ferron's requests
to file a long factum and to obtain the Crown's consent to a fresh evidence
application are premature. The factum Mr. Ferron proposes to file is not before
me. Moreover, he has not yet prepared
and filed a fresh evidence application. Mr. Ferron also seeks transcripts of
the set date appearances and appearance before the summary conviction appeal
court leading up the hearing of the appeal.
Ms. Stuart, counsel
for the Crown, has agreed to investigate whether these additional transcripts
are necessary. However, it should be pointed out that what is pending before
this court is a motion for leave to appeal from the decision of the summary
conviction appeal court.
Further, Mr. Ferron
seeks additional disclosure of items that he does not have. Again, Ms. Stuart
has agreed to look into these matters.
Once Ms. Stuart has
made these investigations, she will
communicate to Mr. Ferron the Crown's position in writing. Mr. Ferron must
understand that in the light of what he has asked for these investigations will
take some time.
Pending these
investigations, and report to Mr. Ferron, this motion is adjourned to a date to
be fixed by the Registrar.
(Laskin J.A., May 14, 2010, Typed
version of handwritten endorsement, R.
v. Wayne Ferron - M38387(C51190))
[744] The Crown’s counsel, Ms. Joanne Stuart reminded the presiding
justice, COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO on the 27th August 2010, that she was in a car accident in July. This was
important information concerning the progress of the perfection of the Appeal.
The Applicant was not disclosed this information nor did he have privy to it,
he over heard it in court while Ms. Joanne Stuart was reminding the justice of
the unfortunate event.
[745] The court was
given material proof in the, (Motion
Record for MANDAMUS with CERTIORARI (M 38706)), and advised of Ms. Joanne Stuart improper action
concerning her handling of the Claimant’s freedom of Information request for
official copies of the Attorney
General’s Directive and the 500 page
Martin Report. Ms. Joanne
Stuart advised the court that she returned the Applicant’s $5.00 check; she
later apologized in a letter for asserting this false information as fact in
Court. She use her undisclosed car accident as justification for the mistake.
[746] The important
issue here is the Crown attorney, (Ms. Joanne
Stuart), exceeded her authority by not forwarding the freedom of
information request to the “HEAD” of
the relevant Government institution. Then she later returned the $5.00 check in
excess of her jurisdiction, after the Applicant advised her that the freedom of
information request was directed to the “ HEAD” and not to her.
[747] Furthermore, the
said Government institution advised the IPC that they never received the said information request and the Applicant was
forced to file another information request with a new $5.00 fee, which in
essence gave the Government Institution an additional 30 days. Even though the
failure to process the initial freedom of information request was no fault of
the Applicant. This cause damage to the Applicant’s credibility and integrity, increased
the Appeal cost to the Applicant, further delay to the Appeal, unnecessary
aggravation of the Applicant and impeded the disclosure of the said information
which is crucial for the Applicant’s arguments in his matter before the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.
[748] This actionable
wrong by the Crown’s counsel against the Applicant constitute legal fraud and
her actions in tort caused the reputation of the Appellant to be diminished and
to delay or deny him the execution of his right to have freedom to relevant
Government information. This effect was foreseeable. The $5.00 is not the
important issue, but the actionable wrong surrounding the issue of the missing
$5.00 was!
[749] Typed version of handwritten endorsement
“R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)
David Watt J.A.
August 27, 2010
This application
seeks relief that this court is not authorized to grant. It is
dismissed. This application for leave to appeal should
be transferred to the inmate/in person list to ensure ongoing supervision. The respondent will provide copies of
transcripts already prepared to the applicant.”
(David Watt J.A., August 27, 2010, Typed
version of handwritten endorsement, R.
v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))
[750] Unknown to the
Applicant at the time, the Honourable Justice Watt completed Motion M38706, the
said motion which was indefinitely adjourned by the Honourable Justice Laskin
to “a date to be set by the registrar”,
was closed without any notification or determination on a balance of
probabilities in open Court on the contested issue of further disclosure. This
all important determination on further disclosure was not even mentioned in the
the Honourable Justice David Watt endorsement.
[751] Furthermore the
aforementioned, was only found out almost a year later while filing NOTICE OF RETURN TO MOTION M38706 at the COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO(M38706),
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen street West; the Clerk of the Court-Registrar informed
the Applicant that M38706 was “closed”. Moreover, Motion M38706 has been closed since August( August 27, 2010)!
[752] It was under
these conditions of uncertainty, discrepancies and actionable wrongs by the Ms.
Joanne Stuart(Crown’s counsel), that the Honourable Justice Watt granted all
the Crown’s request.
[753] On the of 31st of August 2010, the Applicant
received 7 Transcripts, 1 letter and 1 check N0.: 336770 (IPC). The 7 Transcripts were copies of the 7 Transcripts ordered from NEWMARKET COURTHOUSE, from the
respective court reporters. Some of the
Transcripts were completed in less than one week; 1 letter explaining
the mistake of asserting false information in court, concerning the returning
of the $5.00 check in question; 1 check
N0.: 336770, the falsely assumed returned check in question. This was the
totality of work completed by the Crown between 27th of January 2010 and August 2010 in completing the Crown’s duties
assigned by the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL during the hearing of the MOTION FOR
DIRECTION (M38387) for the perfection of his Criminal Appeal on a
question of law.
Please
see under the sub heading, MOTION M38706
M.I.A, in APPLICANT’S FACTUM FOR APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.
CROWN (MR.
ASMA):
[754]
There are uncertified documents served and filed under the pretense
that they are certified real evidence either knowingly or unknowingly. In any
case, this constitute fraud in the Applicant’s humble opinion.
[755] The Applicant has
advise the Courts of the said discrepancies.
The Leave to Appeal materials or documents consist of some uncertified documents. The
Honourable Justice MacPherson, has forcing the
Appeal to be based on questionable documents in the form of real
evidence. This forces into question the credibility of the evidence and it authenticity.
How is their suppose to be an Appeal or Leave to Appeal with no trusted
evidence present.
[756] There
is in essence no complete or reliable evidence from the lower Courts to base an
Appeal on. There is no agreement of facts to base an Appeal on. How can the
panel of Judges make a fair and just determination for leave. It is impossible
for the Leave to Appeal to conform to the high standards of a judicial process,
the said legal construct has been contaminated and its integrity compromised.
Hence Leave to Appeal is not possible!
[757] The Applicant has done his
duty as a law Abiding citizen in bring this fallacy which threaten to
bastardize the integrity of the Leave to Appeal Hearing forward to no avail.
[758] On the of 18th of October 2010, the
Applicant advised the Court that he had only received the Crown’s 22 page only
two days prior, which was less than 1 business day, this is zero business days!
The Applicant was asked if he agrees with the Crowns position, to which he
replied in the negative stating that he does not agree. The presiding justice
said he did not have enough time to go through all the points on the Crown’s
response and the matter was adjourned to the 13th of December 2010,
with the Applicant’s request of a date in December.
“Typed version of handwritten endorsement
R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)
Laskin J.A.
October 18, 2010
Mr. Ferron has the Crown’s position.
This matter is adjourned to the TBST list on Monday December 13, 2010. At that time Mr. Ferron should advises the
court of any disagreement with the Crowns position.”
(Laskin J.A., October 18, 2010, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))
[759] This was done by the Applicant and filed and serve to the Crown
and Court well ahead of time; his position was in the form of a 107 page
response to the Crown’s position.
[760] On the of 13th of
December 2010, the Applicant was trying to advised the Court of his
position and the merits to his Transcript request because he was under the
impression that he was called “to be spoken to” to work out the contested
issues on outstanding further disclosure and transcripts. The presiding justice
made is determination or opinion or whatever the case may be in regards to
transcripts without the benefit of a fair hearing on the balance of
probabilities.
[761] On the of 13th of
October 2010, the Applicant tried in vain to advise the court of his
disagreements with the Crown’s position.
Furthermore, about a week earlier he had filed and served a formal 107
page response document on the areas of disagreement or areas he contested the
Crowns position to no avail. The Applicant expected his 107 page document to be
reviewed by the Crown and Court, so that the contested issues could be dealt
with quickly and prudently in a just determination. But this was not the case:
“Typed version of
handwritten endorsement
R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)
MacPherson J.A.
December 13, 2010
The Crown is directed
to prepare the appeal book which will include the evidence, rulings and
submissions, plus the trial and summary conviction appeal decisions. There is no need to prepare transcripts of other
appearances.
The Crown is
permitted to borrow the audio and video recordings that were exhibits at trial.
The appeal book is to
be completed by January 15, 2010.
Adjourned to February
7, 2011 TBST, hopefully to set a date
for the appeal hearing.”
(MacPherson J.A., December 13, 2010, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))
[762] On the of 22nd of December 2010, the
Applicant brought forward a motion, (MOTION
FOR DIRECTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE AND TRANSCRIPTS, returnable on 24th December 2010, which was moved to 22nd of December 2010, at the
request of the Court.) This was an attempt by the Applicant to put before the
Court his dissatisfaction of the methods used in dealing with the contended
issues before the Court at the December 13, 2010 Hearing “to be spoken to”.
This was also an attempt to officially place before the Courts his position in
Affidavit format. The motion was adjourned to February 7, 2009.
[763] On the 7th of February 2011, the Applicant was called “to be spoken to” in
the Inmate Appeal Court. He advised the said Court that the January 18, 2008 Transcript was
not certified and constituted theft by reading the disclaimer on the last page
(Certification page), out loud for all to hear in open Court 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.”
DOC I, January 18, 2008
Transcript (07-02559).
1. Their is no
certifying signature in blue ink by Fiona Dower, [RULE 40.06(11)].
2. Their is no
Transcript order date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].
3. Their is no
Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].
4.
Their is no notification of Transcript completion date indicated,
[RULE 8(14)];
[764] The
presiding Judge kept quietly, steering the proceeding away from the issue of
theft and authenticity the Applicant had brought forward. He reacted by asking
“if the law applies here? Does the rules apply here? does the Criminal Code
apply?” something to that effect. The presiding Justice was silent on this
point, until he finally stated “So What?”
The Applicant could be wrong, but he is assuming that the said response was to
the uncertified Transcript Issue. Transcripts which are served in the form of
five identical certified copies!
Steeling is steeling, no matter who does it!
Is the law discriminatory?
Are the rules and laws which govern women only meant for poor
wretched black folk like myself?
[765] In any
event, the learned COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Justice did not ask the
Applicant;
•
to show the
offending documents to the Crown;
•
for him to see the
offending documents;
•
nor did he ask the
Clerk of the Inmate Appeal Court, if he could review the same documents at
issue, served and file in triplicates to the Registrar at the COURT OF APPEAL
FOR ONTARIO, for the Panel, for the Applicant’s
Appeal.
In short, their was no affirming or confirmation of the allegation
at issue. It was just ignored, even-though this is part of the real evidence
the Court, the Crown and Appellant will rely on at the Hearing of the Appeal.
[766] The
presiding Justice should have confirm for himself, the Court, and the public,
the truthfulness of the Allegations placed before him or disprove it out
rightly or give the Crown a chance to show evidence to the contrary. The
prudent thing to do would be to affirm the allegation or dismiss the allegation
and do whatever the Court is required to do to remedy the situation pursuant to
the presiding Justice Jurisdiction.
[767] There
was other discrepancies with other Transcripts for the Applicant Appeal, which
brings into question their certification. These other transcripts are;
DOC III, MAY 9, 2008 TRIAL
TRANSCRIPT (07-02559).
1. The certifying
signature signed by Wendy Campbell on May 17/10 is in blue ink.
2. Their is no
Transcript order date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].
3. Their is no
Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].
4.
Their is no notification of Transcript completion date indicated,
[RULE 8(14)].
DOC IV, JUNE 17, 2008
TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (07-02559).
1. The certifying
signature signed by Patty Verni on May 17/10 is in blue ink.
2. Their is no
Transcript order date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].
3. Their is no
Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)].
4.
Their is no notification of Transcript completion date indicated,
[RULE 8(14)].
DOC IX, OCTOBER 14, 2009
TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (07-02559).
1. The certifying
signature signed by Tricia Marinzel on an unknown date in blue ink.
2. Transcript order
date indicated is .... October 27, 2010.
3. Transcript
completion date indicated is .... December 4, 2010.
4. Their is no
notification of Transcript completion date indicated, [RULE 8(14)];
5.
Their is no date for Transcript approved for release indicated,
[RULE 8(14) & 40(11)].
The Applicant was not able to articulate or given the opportunity to
explain to the Court his concerns in regards to the questionable Transcripts.
TAKE NOTICE:
1. their has not been a COURT
REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF
TRANSCRIPT COMPLETION sent to the
Applicant pursuant to RULE 40.06(11) and RULE 8(16);
2. as far as the Applicant is aware, their has not been a COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF
TRANSCRIPT COMPLETION sent or file with the Registrar pursuant to RULE 40.06(11) and RULE 8(16).
3. The Applicant has physically checked his file at the COURT OF APPEAL
FOR ONTARIO, failed to find one.
4. The Applicant has formally requested COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT COMPLETION from the
Registrar, but none has been disclosed to him.
5. The Applicant has formally requested COURT REPORTER’S NOTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT COMPLETION from the
Ministry of Justice, Crown Attorney’s Office under the freedom of information,
but the said Ministry has refused to disclosed. However Mr. Asma (Crown), sent
a letter stating that the Crown has paid for the Transcripts in full and the
Court Reporter merely forgot to sign it. Well this is suspect!
6. It is highly unlikely that A Professionally Trained and
Professionally qualified Court Reporter would forget to sign five Transcripts
of evidence to be used at a high Scholarly Court (COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO), who’s name
graces the pages of many important case law, given the importance placed on
prudence, the stringent constraints on errors and the very high reliability
placed on evidence. This is peoples lives we are dealing with!
7. Again, Five Transcripts, not one; The Applicant personally checked
the filed copies in the COURT RECORD possession, plus the Applicant’s copy and
the Applicant’s copy of the Crown’s copy disclosed by Ms. Joanne Stuart as
directed by Justice Watt’s August 27, 2010 Endorsement.
8. Furthermore, their are three other Transcripts besides DOC I whose certification is in question
(DOC III, DOC IV, and DOC IX).
[768] The
Applicant advised the Court that MOTION
FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE(38706) was still outstanding. Furthermore, it
was adjourned since May 14, 2010 and
the disclosures in-question was promised to him by the lower Courts. The
Applicant also asked about, determination of the issue or endorsement in
regards to Motion(38706). The learned ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL Justice advised
the Applicant that all he needed was the present (Feb 7, 2011) Court Order;
there was no need for Further Disclosure and Further Transcripts and he
asserted that the Applicant was not
going to get anything else. The presiding Justice made is order and asked
if the Applicant would be using the Duty Counsel or representing himself. The
Applicant said, he will be representing himself. Justice MacPherson, not only perfected the Leave to Appeal without
any regard for Rights and Freedoms of the Court reporters or authenticity of
the real evidence. But, the concerns of the Appellant was not taken into consideration
nor one single page of is position on contested issues reviewed in a meaningful
way.
[769] The presiding justice made is determination or opinion or whatever
the case may be in regards to contended Transcript issues, outstanding further
disclosure issues, pending Motion (M38706 from May 14, 2010), without the
benefit of a fair hearing on the balance of probabilities. He issued is adjudication or direction or
opinion or whatever the case may be on important contested issues which has a
dramatic effect on the “Leave to Appeal” without the benefit of weighing the
opposing arguments of the contended issues in the legal scale of Justice.
“ Typed version of handwritten endorsement
R. v. Ferron, Wayne - M38706 (C51190)
MacPherson J.A.
February 7, 2011
“The
appeal book prepared by the Crown is fine.
The appeal is
adjourned to April 11, 2011 for adjournment of the appellant’ application for
leave to appeal.
Mr. Ferron intends to
argue the leave application without the assistance of duty counsel.”
(MacPherson J.A., February 7, 2011, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190))
[770] The Applicant
presented to the Crown and Court is position in the form of a 107 page response to the Crown’s
position and a 34 page document in
response to the APPEAL BOOK(C51190). But, the Applicant’s compliance did not
make any difference. His response documents were ignored. Not one single page
of either document was reviewed in a meaningful way on the platform of a fair
hearing. Things were just done without proof of merits on a balance of
probabilities.
[771] On March 23, 2011, the Applicant is bringing a motion before a
single Judge for Direction on documents
to be filed and the Reconvening of
M38706. The motion is made before a
single Judge, on the 23rd of MARCH, 2011, at 9:30 a.m, at the COURT
OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario,
M5H 2N5, Courthouse. The motion is concerning a change in the Leave to Appeal
Hearing date because of conflicts, reconvening of Motion M38706 or
Return to Motion M38706, and the due dates for the
filing of the Applicant’s Factum, Application to Admit Fresh Evidence, Application
for Transcripts and Further Disclosure, Constitutional Question
Supplementary Materials, Book of Authority, and the respective Application
Records.
HISTORY OF EXHIBIT 2, CD-07-70285:
[772] On December 13, 2011, in addition to fulfillment of requisition made at the lower Courts for EXHIBIT 2, the Applicant again
requested a certified Transcription of EXHIBIT
2 on page 104 to 107 (REQUISITION FOR EXHIBIT 2 TRANSCRIPTION) in his
response to the Crown’s 22 page response. The also confirmed orally of the
record that they would be disclosing a Transcription of EXHIBIT 2 TO THE APPLICANT.
Again the Applicant again requested a certified Transcription of EXHIBIT 2 on the December 22, 2011 under TAB
11(AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT) on page 15 to 16 IN HIS MOTION FOR DIRECTION.
[773] On March 8, 2011, the APPLICANT served the Crown a REQUISITION,
requisitioning a certified Transcription of EXHIBIT 2.
[774] On March 8, 2011, the Applicant received a reply letter dated
March 4, 2011 from the Crown containing uncertified photo copy of transcription
of the “DVD recording of the 911 call...”
and uncertified photo copy of transcription of the “DVD recording of the radio transmissions of York Regional Police...”,
which were both produce on June 22, 2008.
On page 127 of the Crown’s authored APPEAL BOOK(C51190) is an uncertified copy of the EXHIBIT LIST; under the first column,
under May 9, 2008, under the number 2 is listed “CD - 07-70285”. The Applicant
requested many times in the present matter and the lower courts for a certified
transcription of the said article of evidence ( EXHIBIT 2). Why is this request so hard to understand by very
intelligent legal professional with a high graduate education. The Applicant is
requesting and has been requesting since 2009, a certified transcription of “CD - 07-70285”, which is EXHIBIT 2.
[775] Similarly, the aforesaid was a major issue at the lower courts:
On July 27, 2009 it was
determined and confirmed by the presiding Justice of the Ontario Superior Court
Justice at the Newmarket location that:
firstly, there is a mistake in the EXHIBIT
LIST CRIMINAL for Information 07-02559, byway of missing
material evidence which should be listed between exhibit one and exhibit three.
The missing material evidence was
determined to be the 9-1-1 CD for GO 2007-70285.
[776] Secondly, there is a second mistake in the EXHIBIT LIST CRIMINAL for Information 07-02559, byway
of exhibit two being mislabeled. Exhibit
two should have been labeled “York
Regional Police Services Transmission Dispatch log for GO 2007-70285 CD” instead
of “9-1-1 CD for GO 2007-70285”.
[777] The presiding Appellate Court Justice dismissed the Applicant’s
APPLICATION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE for INMATE APPEAL, for failure to meet the
requirements for admitting new evidence.
The Court ordered
the matter returnable on September 14, 2008.
The Court set a new
Appeal Hearing Date for October 5, 2008 at 2:15 P.M.
[778] The Court ordered the
Applicant to file and serve a copy of his copy of the missing exhibit (9-1-1 CD
for GO 2007-70285), material evidence which had vanished from under the
Crown’s protection, the Crown’s stewardship, and could not be retrieve by prosecutor for months.
[779] July 27, 2009, Application Transcript;
APPLICATION TO ADMIT
EVIDENCE FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559)
The said Application for direction in perfecting the appeal was
filed and served on June 29, 2009 and returnable on July 27, 2009 at 9:30 AM..
[780] The facts surrounding the disclosing of April 28, 2008 Application Transcript(07-02559) and Mr. Westgate’s (Crown Attorney) questionable actions of the said
transcript disclosing was put on the record before the learned Superior Court
Judge, Justice Boswell who
determined the said issue (Legal Fraud), not to be relevant.
[781] His reaction was to ask the Applicant if he fulfilled Justice
Bryant’s Court order issued on July 20, 2009. Furthermore, he issued another
Court order against the Applicant to file All his copies of the evidence in
dispute with the Crown. The Court had directed the Crown to disclosed copies of
the said evidence to the Applicant on at least four occasion (May
4, 2009 to July 20, 2009).
“July 20 2009
Mr. Westgate for the
Crown
Mr. Ferron in person
Mr. Ferron to attend
Crown’s office @ 9:30 A:M to bring with him all Transcripts that he has in his
possession in order that the Crown may order copies for the Appeal for the
Court and the Crown. Mr Ferron to attend the Court Office for a copy of
informations, endorsements and orders that he needs for this Appeal. Mr. Westgate will give Mr. Ferron a copy of
exhibit 6B.)”
(J. Bryant, July 20, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559), not an
official typed copy)
[782] Pursuant to Justice Bryant’s orders, the Applicant filed and served
APPLICANT’S DISCLOSURE FOR INMATE
APPEAL (07-02559), on July 21,
2009 in accordance with Rule 46.
“July 27 2009
Mr. P. Tait for the
Crown
Appellant in person
{...}
2. It appears that trial Ex 2 - the CD of 911 call - is
actually a CD of the dispatch call. The Ex
2 will remain available to the appeal judge. In addition, I order the Appellant to deliver to the
Crown a copy of the recorded 911 call that is identical to the one played
during trial.
The Crown will confirm if it is content with the
recording.
The Crown will ensure that
playable audio equipment is available to the court at the hearing of the
appeal.
{...}
In the result, the
Application is dismissed, save as my order concerning the 911 CD, set out at
para 3 above.”
(J. Boswell, July 27,
2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron
(07-02559))
[783] This was never done by the Crowns at the lower Courts!
“May 04 2009 CROWN:
Westgate
Mr. Ferron in person
Crown will attempt to
assist Mr. Ferron obtain a copy of a
video tape and a cd....”
(Justice Bryant, May 04, 2009,
endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron
(07-02559), unofficial)
[784]
“Jun 29 2009
Motion adjourned to
July 27/09@9:30 a:m.
To Accommodate the
following:
-obtaining and
providing to A. a Transcript of the trial proceedings on 28 April, 2008;
-copying of Ex.6B for
A (same to be release to the Crown for that purpose);
-obtaining and copying of a communication tape requested
by the A.”
(Justice..., July 29,
2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron
(07-02559), unofficial )
[785] Although it is not entirely
clear in these court orders from the lower court, it was referring to EXHIBIT 2. But, to clear things up,
their was a formal requisition filed and
served on all concerned parties on July
20, 2009 at the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, under the title REQUISITION FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559).
The Crown and the Court has this document in there position and the records
should have it at the ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL.
On page 2, item (II) is stated;
“I REQUIRE one
certified copy of EXHIBIT 2 GO
07-70285 for Information NO: 07-02559 and Information NO: 07-02500; Moreover, a copy of the 9-1-1 CD:”
(REQUISITION FOR INMATE APPEAL(07-02559), page 2)
[786] This has never been done at the lower courts or at the COURT OF
APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. Frankly, the Applicant is just plain sick of asking; So,
what is the Crown hiding? And is this action in accordance with the duty of
their public Office? This is just plain misleading the Court byway of an act of
omission or perverting the course of justice.
[787] The Crown never fulfill its part of the court order. It was
protected from fulfilling the said order just like it has always been during
the Appellate process (S.C.J.). The impression given to the Applicant is
that, Court endorsements, Court directions and Court orders are for the accuse
to fulfill, while a very liberal “don’t care” attitude is taken by the Crown.
This is a challenge to the Martin Report and a direct attack on fairness and equity
in the judicial system!
UNCLEAN HANDS :
[789] In addition to
the legal notion of FRUITS FROM A POISONOUS TREE, can Crown send its Public
Agents with “UNCLEAN HANDS” to open Court to do battle in an adversarial
judicial system and still expect the judicial proceedings to be fair and
equitable? Is it reasonable to expect such a thing and is it possible to find
the truthfulness in the matter before the Court and expunge falsehood?
[790] It seem
reasonable within the context of a reasonable person, that the issues of FRUITS
FROM A POISONOUS TREE, the issues of “UNCLEAN HANDS” which are causing the
infringement of the Charter, need to be remedy first. In order to level the
playing and restore fairness and equity to processing of the matter before this
honourable Court.
UNCLEAN HANDS
[21]I take it to be
undisputed that the remedies sought by Volkswagen Canada in this case include
equitable relief, and that it is open to Access International to allege that
Volkswagen Canada should be denied such relief because it does not come to the
Court with "clean hands".
An unclean hands defence can be made out if, but only if, there is a sufficient
connection between the subject-matter of the claim and the equitable relief
sought. This was explained as follows by Schroeder J.A. in Toronto (City) v.
Polai, [1970] 1 O.R. 483 (C.A.) (affirmed without discussion of this point,
1972 CanLII 22 (S.C.C.), [1973] S.C.R. 38) [at pages 493-494]:”
(AN
ECONOMIC APPROACH TO ADULTERY LAW, Eric Rasmusen, Discussion Paper No. 322,
ISSN 1045-6333, 05/2001)
Information
Nos.: C51190
court of appeal for ontario
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent
-
and -
WAYNE FERRON Applicant
CITATION - VOLUME IV
APPLICATION RECORD FOR
APPLICATION
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
4.) BIAS or REASONABLE
APPREHENSION OF BIAS
WORK CITED
1)
Honourable Justice Healey, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE , RULING for Information No.: 07-02559
2)
Complainant’s Cr-ex, May 9, 2008 Trial Transcript for 07-02559
3) un-signed VIA E-MAIL, STATEMENT or SUMMARY of WITNESS ACCOUNT
4)
Mess, COM 12, YORK REGIONAL POLICE, FOR: 1079, CASE:
7-70285, Mar 27 911
5)
Transcript of Recording of 911 call of Geoffrey Fardy,
07Mar27
6)
Transcription of the Recording of 9-1-1 call
to YRP by complainant
7) Honourable Justice Kenkel, September 26, 2008, REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT
8)
Joanne Stuart, Crown’s
response Page 7 of 22
9)
Wayne Ferron, Applicant, RESPONSE TO CROWN’S
RESPONSE REGARDING
10) TRANSCRIPTS AND DISCLOSURE
11) May 16, 2008 letter sent to Crown Counsel
(Ms. Goodier) at the Lower Court
12) Jun 17, 2008 ABUSE OF PROCESS APPLICATION
against Crown Counsel (Ms. Goodier) at the Lower Court
13) Officer Broughton
Cr-ex, May 9,
2008 TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS
14) April 28, 2008
Application Transcript, page 5-6
15) May 9 TRIAL TRANSCRIPT page
49-50
16) June 17, 2008 Application Transcript, page 2
17) July 23,
2008 Trial Continuation Transcript on page 77
18) July 23, 2008 Trial Continuation Transcript,
page 78-82
19) January 18th, 2008 Trial
Transcript
20) 23 July 2008, TRIAL TRANSCRIPT
21) Officer Broughton (1079), INITIAL OFFICER REPORT
22) Officer Stribbell (529), PROSECUTION SUMMARY-GUILTY PLEA SYNOPSIS
23) Staff Sergeant Bruce Ringler (193), Typed OFFICER’S NOTES
24) Officer Stribbell (529), SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
25) fficer Stribbell (529), SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT
26) James Edwards, M.D. Presiding Coroner March
21, 200, Nicholas Blentzas
27) (Laskin
J.A., October 18, 2010, R. v. Wayne
Ferron - M38706(C51190))
28) Laskin J.A., October 18, 2010, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190)
29) MacPherson J.A., December 13, 2010, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190)
30) MacPherson J.A., February 7, 2011, R. v. Wayne Ferron - M38706(C51190)
31) J. Bryant, July 20, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559), not an
official typed copy
32) J. Boswell, July 27, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559)
33) Justice Bryant, May 04, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559), unofficial
34) Justice..., July 29, 2009, endorsement, R. v. Wayne Ferron (07-02559), unofficial
35) REQUISITION FOR INMATE
APPEAL(07-02559)
All of
which is respectfully submitted.
Date:..
_________________________
Wayne Ferron
Email: ferronwayne@gmail.com
TO: The Clerk of the
Court--Registrar
Osgoode
Hall
130 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5
Tel: 416
327 5020
Fax: 416
327 6032
AND TO
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
court of appeal for ontario
|
R |
Court file no.: C51190 |
|
|
COURT OF APPEAL
PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT Osgoode Hall 130 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5
DOC-X VOLUME IV APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION 4.)
Wayne Ferron |
There are no posts in this folder...
- 338 reads