Thursday, March 14, 2024

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, CLERKS, WHO HAVE ACTED BIAS, AGAINST SELF REPRESENTED, LITIGANTS. AND EVEN TAKING ON THE ROLE, OF A JUDGE, WHEN REVIEWING THE CASES, THAT ARE BEFORE THE COA. RATHER THAN STAYING WITH, THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE DUTY, THEY ARE NOW MAKING DECISIONS, OUTSIDE OF THEIR JURISDICTION. KEEPING IN MIND, THAT THE COA DEALS, WITH MOTIONS AND APPEALS.

THE CONSPIRACY, I BELIEVED, WAS TO BLOCK MY MATTERS, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO,  AND THIS WAS ALSO DONE, BY THE COURT'S STAFF. 

ONE SUCH STAFF, NAJMA, SENT ME AN EMAIL, AS A CARBON COPY, AFTER SENDING THE SAME EMAIL, TO THE REGISTRAR, TASHEKAH GENTLES, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, DISCUSING MY MATTER, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. BASICALLY, ASKING THE REGISTRAR, TASHEKAH GENTLES, ON HOW TO PROCEED, WITH MY MATTER IN THE COA, THE HIGHTER COURT. SHE THEN LATER, SOMEWHAT, APOLOGIZED AND ALSO CLAIMED, THAT THE EMAIL, WAS INTENDED, FOR HER SUPERIOR. 

THE COURT OF APPEAL STAFF, REGULARLY, BLOCKED MY MATTERS, FROM MOVING FORWARD, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. AND I USUALLY, HAVE TO WAIT MANY MONTHS, FOR THE DOCUMENTS, TO BE FILED IN THE COA, AFTER SENDING IT TO THE COURT FOR FILING. NOR ARE THEY EVEN SET DOWN, TO BE HEARD, BY THE SINGLE JUDGE, OR PANEL OF THE COA. (SO FAR, MY MOTIONS FOR LEAVE, HAS NOT GONE TO THE PAEL, BUT TO A SINGLE JUDGE). THIS WAS ALL THE DOINGS, OF THE CLERKS, SUCH AS SANDY, NOAH, CHRIS, OR NAJAMA, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, STAFF, BLOCKING ACCESS, TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HONORABLE, MICHAEL TULLOCH, REGARDING A COMPLAINT, AGAINST THEM.  LIKEWISE, THE SECRETARY, LISA HO, TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE, ALSO BLOCKED MY LETTER OF COMPLAINT, TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT OF APPEAL.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario, clerks, not only reviews your documents for filing, they are also now, making decisions on your documents, that only a judge should also make.  In my case, the staff at the COA, blocked a motion for leave to appeal, the decision of a single judge, of the Divisional court,  some months ago, telling me that it must be heard by the panel first.  At the same time, it also allowed another motion for leave, of a another single judge of the Divisional court's decision, to be filed in the COA and also assigned a file number to that document.  Why the discrepancy, since both decisions, were made by single motions judges, of the Divisional court?. When you look deeper into the situation, you get to see, that the clerks, were actually trying to personally, interfere. in the cases before the COA, by deciding which case gets through and which ones do not. (I will be expanding, on this article, soon).

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

REPORTS OF REFUGEE FRAUD, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, IN MISSISSAUGA, PEEL REGION AND THE LACK OF SHELTER BEDS, FOR THE REGULAR, HOMELESS CANADIANS, AT THE SHELTER.

CLEAR EVIDENCE, OF A POSSIBLE, "MASSIVE REFUGEE FRAUD", COVER-UP, THAT IS BEING, PERPETRATED,  AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, IN MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO.  WHERE THAT SHELTER, HAS BEEN USED, AS A "LANDING PLATFORM", OR A "STOP OVER", FOR THE MASSIVE INFLUX, OF KENYAN, UGANDAN AND NIGERIAN, "REFUGEES".  WHO MAKES THE SHELTER, THEIR SEMI PERMANENT, HOME, FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS, TO A YEAR, WHILE THEY ALSO WAIT, FOR THEIR REFUGEE APPLICATIONS, TO BE PROCESSED.  AND THE MAJORITY OF THOSE APPLICATIONS, ARE ALSO FRAUDULENT.  

    *  KENYAN REFUGEES AND UGANDAN AND NIGERIAN REFUGEES, STAND A 90%                CHANCE, OF GETTING INTO THE CAWTHRA ROAD HOMELESS SHELTER.  

   *  REGULAR HOMELESS CANADIANS, STAND A 10% CHANCE OF GETTING INTO 
       THE SAME SHELTER. 

   *  FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, IT WAS ALSO DISTURBING TO SEE, THOSE  "REFUGEES", COMING TO THE SHELTER, WEARING DESIGNER CLOTHES AND CARRYING DESIGNER LUGGAGE, MOST OF THEM, AND YET CLAIMING, THAT THEY ARE ALSO FLEEING, PERSECUTION, IN THEIR FORMER COUNTRIES.  IF THEY HAD THAT KIND OF MONEY, WHY ARE THEY ALSO, IMMEDIATELY, GIVEN WELFARE BENEFITS, AS SOON AS THEY ARE ADMITTED, INTO THE SHELTER?. PLUS TRANSPORTATION COST, (MONEY), FOR LAWYER APPOINTMENTS, TO HELP THEM WITH THEIR BOGUS APPLICATIONS, (MOST OF THEM), WHICH I BELIEVED, IS ALSO PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT. 

  IT IS EASY, TO BUY YOUR WAY, INTO CANADA, WITH A BOGUS REFUGEE 
  DOCUMENT.  

 SOME OF THOSE "REFUGEES", LIKE THE ONE WHO IS CURRENTLY, IN A ROOM
 (ROOM 221), AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, WHO LIKES TO BRAG, THAT SHE
 HAS BEEN TO FIVE OTHER COUNTRIES, INCLUDING, TURKEY, AND HAS ALSO MET
 WITH RUSSIANS, BEFORE COMING TO CANADA.  AND THAT SHE ALSO HAD A     HOUSE ALSO HAD A HOUSE IN KENYA, WHICH SHE IS ALSO, CONTEMPLATING,   GOING BACK TO. SHE BELIEVES THAT CANADA, IS TOO COLD AND LIFE, IS TOO   HARD HERE. FOR THE FIVE DAYS, OR SO, THAT SHE HAS LANDED IN CANADA. 
 SHE IS AREADY COMPLAINING. SHE IS ALSO PRONED TO ACT, AGGRESSIVE, AND
 VIOLENT, TOWARDS THE OTHER RESIDENTS. ON A REFUGEE METER, I WOULD 
 GIVE HER A ZERO. APPARENTLY, THIS WOMAN, HAS NEVER HEARD OF THE                 SAYING, THAT LOOSE LIPS, SINK SHIPS. HEARING, ABOUT HER STORY, I DO 
 BELIEVED, THAT SHE HAS MET, THE RUSSIANS IN TURKEY, AS SHE CLAIMED.
 THE RUSSIAN MAFIA, PERHAPS, WHO ARE TOUGH AND VIOLENT. 
         
SHELTER BEDS, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, IS NOT EASY TO COME BY, 
FOR THE GENERAL COMMUNITY. ON ANY GIVEN DAY, OR NIGHT, HUNDRED OF HOMELESS CANADIANS, ARE CALLING THAT SHELTER FOR A BED, TO BE TURNED AWAY, DAILY AND BEING TOLD THAT THERE, WERE NO BEDS AVAILABLE. BUT THAT WAS NOT THE TRUTH. THERE WERE BEDS AVAILABLE, BUT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO ACCESSED THOSE BEDS, BECAUSE OF THE POLICY OF THE SHELTER, TO RESERVED THOSE BEDS, FOR THE REFUGEES, MENTIONED, AT THAT PARTICULAR SHELTER. THIS HAPPENS AT NO OTHER SHELTER. WHERE THE RATE OF THE REFUGEE CLAIMANTS AND THE REGULAR HOMELESS CANADIANS, ARE ABOUT THE SAME. NOT SO AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, THE SITUATION IS REVERSED, WHER THE SO CALLED REFUGEES, WERE LET INTO THE SHELTER AND THE REGULAR HOMELESS CANADIANS, WERE LEFT TO SLEEP ON THE STREET. 

* ONE OF THE FIRST RED FLAG, IS THAT THOSE REFUGEES, FROM THE THREE COUNTRIES MENTIONED, ARE ALSO "GUARANTEED A BED", AT THE SHELTER. THIS WAS MADE CLEAR, (IF YOU DO THE MATH, ALSO), AT THE RATE, AT WHICH THEY WERE, ADMITTED AT THE SHELTER. THEY HAD A 90% CHANCE OR MORE, OF GETTING INTO THE SHELTER, ABOVE, THE REGULAR CANADIAN, WHO WERE ALSO WAITING, TO GET INTO THE SAME SHELTER, BUT HAD LESS THAN A TEN % CHANCE, OF GETTING IN.  SINCE THEY ARE TAKING A CHANCE, AND CALLING INTO THE SHELTER AND NOT GETTING IN, AND THE SOCALLED REFUGEES, ARE ALSO CALLING THE SHELTER AND GETTING IN, THEN THIS COULD ONLY MEAN ONE THING. THAT THE REFUGEES, GETTING INTO THE SAME SHELTER, MUST HAVE BEEN DONE, FROM THE "INSIDE". THE DECISION, WAS MADE FROM THE "INSIDE", I.E, FROM THE SHELTER STAFF AND MANAGEMENT, OR FROM A SINGLE PERSON, IN A POSITION TO DO SO, WHERE THOSE "REFUGEES", WERE GUARANTEED A BED, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER.

WHERE THE FINGER OF BLAME, IS BEING POINTED. AND NOT BY ONE PERSON, BUT BY MANY.  THE GENERAL CONSENSUS, IS THAT, THIS WOMAN, NANCY NGANGA, IS TO BE BLAMED, FOR THE INFLUX, OF KENYAN "REFUGEES", ESPECIALLY, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, IN MISSISSAUGA, PEEL REGION. THE RESIDENTS, HAVE SEEN BEDS, THAT WERE EMPTY, ONLY TO BE SET ASIDE, FOR THOSE KENYAN, UGANDAN AND NIGERIAN, "REFUGEES", AT THE SHELTER.

YES, BLAME "MAMA" NANCY NGANGA. THE KENYAN BORN, SUPERVISOR, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, WHOSE LOYALTY, TO HER COUNTRYMEN, OUTWEIGHS, HER DUTY, TO THE OTHER RESIDENTS

AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, DURING THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS, WHEN A CHURCH GROUP, HAD ALSO VOLUNTEERED, AT THE SHELTER, MAKING A CHRISTMAS DINNER, FOR THE RESIDENTS AND SINGING CHRISTMAS CAROLS, FOR THE RESIDENTS, NANCY NGANGA, THE SUPERVISOR, APPEARED IN THE DINING ROOM AND MADE AN ANOUNCEMENT.  THAT NO PICTURES OR VIDEOS, WAS TO BE TAKEN, OF THE RESIDENTS. ( WHERE A LOT OF THE REFUGEE CLAIMANTS, WERE, ALSO). SO THE KIND VOLUNTEERS, WERE NOT ABLE TO TAKE, ANY GROUP PICTURES, WITH ANYONE, AT THE SHELTER. THANKS TO NANCY.

SOME HAVE EVEN ASKED, THE QUESTION, IF SHE WAS ALSO, AIDING AND ABETTING?. (WHICH MEANS, BASICALLY, TO AID SOMEONE, IN BREAKING, THE LAW). IN OTHER WORDS, UNTRUTHFUL REFUGEE CLAIMANTS, AT THE SHELTER, WHO HAVE BEEN ASSISTED BY HER, IN VARIOUS WAYS, INCLUDING, WITH LONGER STAYS, AT THE SHELTER, OR IN OTHER WAYS, (IT IS HARD TO BELIEVED, THAT SHE DID NOT NOTICED, THE VAST DISPARITY, IN THE NUMBER OF REFUGEES, TO OTHER REGULAR, HOMELESS RESIDENTS, AT THE SHELTER. AND THAT THE REFUGEES, FROM HER FORMER COUNTRY AND THE OTHER TWO COUNTRIES, MENTIONED, WERE THE MAJORITY, AT THE SHELTER. THAT THEY HAD OVERCROWED, THE SHELTER, IN NUMBERS.  WHERE MORE THAN TWO THIRDS, OF THE RESIDENTS, WERE SO CALLED REFUGEES). 

AND THAT MANY OF THEM, WERE ALSO BREAKING THE LAW, REGARDING, THEIR FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS, AND REFUGEE CLAIMS. IN FACT, HER ACTIONS, ARE SUSPICIOUS, TO SAY THE VERY LEAST. CERTAINLY, THERE SHOULD BE, AN INVESTIGATION, OR SEVERAL OF THEM, AS TO WHY, SHE WAS ALSO BLINDED, TO THIS FACT. WHEN THE NUMBER OF "REFUGEES", AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, MORE THAN DOUBLED, THE NUMBER OF THOSE, OTHER REFUGEES, IN OTHER SHELTERS, WHICH ARE ALSO VASTLY, MORE DIVERSIFIED, AND NOT JUST INVOLVING, ONLY THREE KINDS OF PEOPLE, BUT MORE INCLUSIVE.  ONE OF THE "REFUGEES", WAS HEARD SAYING, THAT, SHE DID NOT MIND, GOING BACK TO KENYA. AND ALSO BRAGGED, THAT SHE HAD A HOUSE IN KENYA. (I ALSO DOUBTED, IF SHE WAS STAYING, AT ONE OF THE REFUGEE CAMPS, IN KENYA). IN OTHER WORDS, SHE WAS EMPHASIZING, THAT HER LIFE WAS BETTER, IN KENYA AND HATED BEING IN THE SHELTER. WHICH SHE ALSO LOOKED DOWN UPON.  ALTHOUGH, IT WAS ALSO NECESSARY, TO BE LIVING, AT THE SHELTER, FOR HER REFUGEE CLAIM. SO THE LOGICAL QUESTION, TO BE ASKED THEN IS, WHY WOULD A LEGITIMATE, REFUGEE, WANT TO GO BACK TO A COUNTRY, THAT SHE HAD LEFT, BECAUSE OF PERSECUTION?. OR THAT IT WAS UNSAFE FOR HER?. MANY, IF NOT ALL, OF THESE "REFUGEES", AT THE SHELTER, HAD CHILDREN, WHO WERE LEFT BEHIND, IN THOSE COUNTRIES. 

AND THOSE CHILDREN, WERE ALSO HAPPY AND WELL TAKEN CARE OF, AS WELL. (I AM SAYING THIS, BASED ON PROOF. NOT SPECULATIONS). MEANING, THAT I ALSO, HAVE INFORMATION, THAT I HAVE ALSO NOT SHARED, PUBLICLY, REGARDING, THOSE PERSONS. THEY ONLY MISSED, THEIR LYING PARENTS, (MOST OF THEM, ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH, ABOUT THEIR, REFUGEE CLAIMS),WHO HAD SOUGHT A BETTER LIFE, IN CANADA, "THROUGH THE BACK DOOR", SO TO SPEAK.

SO WAS SHE INVOLVED, FOR PERSONAL REASONS, IN ASSISTING, PERSONS, IN SOME OF THEIR FALSE, REFUGEE CLAIMS, IN CANADA?. TO, ALLEGEDLY, KNOWINGLY, ASSISTED, THOSE WHO MAY HAVE BEEN, BREAKING THE LAW?. THAT WOUDL ALSO BE, "AIDING AND ABETTING", THOSE PERSONS, TO BREAK THE LAW. AT THE VERY LEAST, SHE WAS USING THE SHELTER, TO PROVIDE BEDS AND A SEMI PERMANENT HOME, FOR THE REFUGEES, WHILE OTHER CANADIANS, COULD NOT GET INTO THE SHELTER. I WILL MENTION, AN ALLEGED, INCIDENT, THAT STANDS OUT.  ALLEGEDLY, AN INCIDENT, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER,  LAST WEEK, INVOLVING, A "REFUGEE" WOMAN, AT THE SHELTER, ALLEGEDLY, WHO MAY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT, RED HANDED, INITIATING, ALLEGEDY, A BOGUS REFUGEE CLAIM. WHEN THE WOMAN REALIZED, THAT THE INFORMATION, AND ALSO HER ACTIONS, WERE EXPOSED, SHE WAS ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, SENT TO A HOTEL FOR REFUGEES, BY NANCY. FOR SOME REASON, NANCY THE SUPERVISOR, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, INEXPLICABLY, REMOVED THE WOMAN, TO ANOTHER LOCATION, ONLY DAYS, AFTER SHE HAD COME, TO THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER AND WHERE THE INCIDENT, ALLEGEDLY, HAD OCCURED. SHE WAS SENT TO A HOTEL, THAT ALSO HOUSED, SOME OF THE FORMER REFUGEES, OF THE SHELTER. WHO HAD BEEN ASKED TO LEAVE, BECAUSE OF THEIR LENGHY STAYS, (THAT ALSO WENT FOR A LONG TIME, "UNNOTICED", BY THE REGION OF PEEL), AS WELL AS THE NEW ARRIVALS, SINCE THE SHELTER, NOW HAS AN OVERLOAD. RESIDENTS IN THE "KNOW", HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION, "WHY DID THE SUPERVISOR, NANCY, DO THAT?. WHY DID IT SEEM LIKE, SHE WAS ACTING TO PROTECT, THE WOMAN, BECAUSE SHE WAS FOUND OUT AND THAT THIS COULD, ALSO, HAVE COMPROMISED, HER SITUATION, AS A REFUGEE CLAIMANT?. WHEN I FIRST HEARD, OF THE SUPERVISOR'S, ALLEGED, ACTIONS, I BECAME SUSPICIOUS, AS TO WHY SHE WANTED, TO SEND "THAT REFUGEE", (AND THAT IS NOT THE ONLY ONE, THAT SHE ALSO PROTECTED), TO ANOTHER LOCATION, WHEN SO MANY OTHER REFUGEES, ALSO REMAINED, AT THE SHELTER. IT WAS CLEAR, THAT SHE WAS ALSO, PROTECTING HER.  AND THE REASONS, ALSO REMAINED UNCLEAR, AT THIS TIME. BUT SOME OF THE RESIDENTS, OF THE SHELTER, ALSO BELIEVED, THAT IT WAS TO PROTECT THE WOMAN, FROM BEING, INVESTIGATED, REGARDING, HER REFUGEE CLAIM, WHEN "OTHER INFORMATION" ABOUT HER CLAIM, ALSO CAME TO LIGHT. WAS SHE ALSO, "HELPING", THE WOMAN, TO EVADE BEING, INVESTIGATED, FOR HER ACTIONS, OVER HER REFUGEE STATUS, IN CANADA?. WHICH WOULD ALSO BE, "AN ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT", OFFENCE, IN CANADA. LOOK IT UP. THERE MUST HAVE BEEN HUNDREDS, OF THESE "REFUGEES", PASSING THROUGH THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTERS, BOTH RECENTLY, AND YEARS BACK.  THERE IS A LAW, CURRENTLY, THAT IF SOMEONE GAINS THEIR REFUGEE STATUS, UNDER FRAUDULENT MEANS, SUCH AS BY LYING, ON THEIR APPLICATION, THAT THEIR REFUGEE STATUS, WOULD BE REVERSED. IN OTHER WORDS, TAKEN AWAY.  THE LEGISLATION IN QUESTION, IS BILL- C 31. 

I HAVE GENUINE EMPHATHY, FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SUFFERED. I AM NOT AGAINST GENUINE REFUGEES. FACING PERSECUTION, ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, OR AS A GROUP, SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN, ADVANTAGE OF, BY THOSE WHO SEE IT, AS A MEANS OF FURTHERING, THEIR OWN CAUSE. TO ME, THEY ARE PREVENTING, THE REAL REFUGEES, FROM HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY, THAT THEY HAVE NOW TAKEN AWAY, THROUGH THEIR ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM. 

THE RED FLAG SHOULD GO UP, WHEN THERE ARE TOO MANY, OF THE SAME PEOPLE, TELLING THE SAME STORY, WITHIN A NARROW OR SMALL RADIUS. WHEN THE STORIES ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL AND COMING FROM THE SAME PLACE. WHEN THERE IS NO LATTITUDE, BECAUSE ALL ARE FAMILIAR, WITH THE SAME STORY, THAT THEY ARE  TELLING, OR PERPETRATING.  AS IF THEY ARE ALL LIVING, IN ONE BIG HOME AND ALL ARE EXPERIENCING, THE EXACT SAME THING. OR, SINCE IT IS A PLOY, THEY HAVE ALL LEARNED, THE BASICS, OF THE EXTENT OF THEIR PLOTS. AND CENTRAL TO THE PLOT, IS THE REFUGEE APPLICATION. SO WHEN IT WORKS FOR ONE, IT ALSO WORKS FOR ALL OF THEM, BECAUSE IN THIS GAME, THERE IS A CENTRAL THEME, (FOR THEM). AND THEY ALL FOLLOW THE SAME COURSE. THE SAME SCRIPT. NONE OF THEIR SITUATIONS, ARE UNIQUE. WHY SHOULD IT BE, OTHERS HAVE DONE IT BEFORE AND IT IS ALSO A SAFELY GUARDED SECRET, ONLY KNOWN TO THE ONES, WHO ARE CARRYING IT OUT.  UNTIL THEY ARE EXPOSED. 

Thursday, February 22, 2024

SHOCKING CLAIMS!!! OF REFUGEE FRAUD, AT THE SALVATION ARMY, CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER. THE KENYAN BORN SUPERVISOR, NANCY, AND THE NIGERIAN BORN, DIRECTOR, BLESSING ANYANWU, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, IN PEEL REGION, ARE BEING BLAMED, FOR THE INFLUX, OF KENYAN, UGANDAN AND NIGERIAN, "REFUGEES", (ONLY), AT THE SHELTER, OVER THE YEARS, AND RECENTLY. AND EXCLUDING, ALL OTHER REFUGEES. WHERE THE CAPACITY, AT THE SHELTER, AS OF TWO MONTHS AGO, WAS ABOUT 80% "REFUGEES", TO 20%, REGULAR HOMELESS, CANADIANS. MORE THAN TWICE, THE NUMBERS, AT OTHER SHELTERS. AND THE CLAIM BY SOME, THAT THERE WAS ALSO, REFUGEE FRAUD, INVOLVED. PLUS THE RECENT, DEATH, AT THE SHELTER, OF AN ALLEGED, DRUG OVERDOSE, DEATH, OF A CANADIAN MALE, THAT COULD HAVE ALSO, BEEN PREVENTED.

THE SALVATION ARMY'S, 2 BILLION DOLLARS IN ASSETS, YET NO TIOLET PAPER AND LACK OF HOT WATER, FOR THE HOMELESS RESIDENTS, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER.

* DONATIONS: THAT ARE ALLEGED, TO BE STOLEN BY THE STAFF. (THE RESIDENTS, HAS NO ACCESS TO THE DONATIONS, DIRECTLY, SOME OF WHICH ARE KEPT, IN A LOCKED ROOM. STAFF DO NOT GIVE OUT THOSE DONATIONS, TO THE RESIDENTS, OF THE SHELTER). RESIDENTS OF THE SHELTER, RECEIVED ONLY, USED CLOTHING, FROM THE STAFF. DONATIONS, FROM CORPORATIONS, THE STAFF, DO NOT GIVE OUT DIRECTLY, TO THE RESIDENTS, BUT ARE KEPT BY THE STAFF, IN A LOCKED ROOM.  THE SHELTER STAFF, ARE ALLEGED, TO KEEP THOSE BRAND NEW ITEMS, (DONATIONS) FOR THEMSELVES. 

THIS INCLUDES, BRAND NEW CLOTHING, COATS, SHOES, BOOTS, UNDERWEARS AND EVEN HOUSEHOLD ITEMS. CERTAIN RESIDENTS, SUCH AS THE REFUGEES, ARE GIVEN SOME OF THOSE BRAND NEW ITEMS, BY CERTAIN STAFF, SUCH AS NANCY AND OTHER STAFF. 

THE SALVATION ARMY, CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, IN MISSISSAUGA, PEEL REGION, NEED TO BE EXPOSED, FOR THE OUTRAGEOUS, TREATMENT, OF THE HOMELESS PEOPLE, WHO CALLS THAT SHELTER, THEIR TEMPORARY HOME, FROM THE ABUSE OF THE STAFF. AND THE OTHER ISSUES, THAT THEY ALSO FACE AT THE SHELTER.  SUCH AS A LACK OF TOILET PAPER AND HOT WATER, TO TAKE A SHOWER, TO THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND ABUSE BY THE STAFF. 

AT THE CAWTHRA  ROAD SHELTER, THE NIGERIAN BORN, DIRECTOR, BLESSING ANYANWU AND THE KENYAN BORN, SUPERVISOR, NANCY NGANGA, OPENLY, PROTECTED, A RECENT KENYAN WOMAN, AT THE SHELTER, A SO CALLED REFUGEE, WHO HAD APPLIED FOR, REFUGEE STATUS IN CANADA, AFTER COMING DIRECTLY, ON FEBRUARY 20, 2024,  FROM DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, ON FEBRUARY 19, 2024, ON A ONE WAY FLIGHT, THAT COST OVER $2,200.00. TO CANADA. BUT IT DID NOT STOP THERE, THE WOMAN, KNOWN BY THE FIRST NAME "EVA" (I KNOW HER FULL NAME, BUT WILL NOT MENTION IT HERE) HAD ALSO INITIALLY, TRAVELLED FROM ISTANBUL, TURKEY, TO CAIRO, EGYPT, THEN ON TO DUBAI. FROM DUBAI, SHE THEN TOOK A  FLIGHT TO CANADA, LANDING AT THE TORONTO PEARSON AIRPORT. AND THEN CAME TO THE SHELTER, CLAIMING, TO BE A REFUGEE, COMING FROM KENYA. THIS IS THE SAME WOMAN, WHO ALSO BRAGGED, THAT SHE KNEW RUSSIANS, WHEN SHE LIVED IN ISTANBUL, TURKEY.  NANCY NGANGA, WAS SEEN BY OTHER RESIDENTS, SPEAKING ANGRILY, TO "EVA", AFTER SHE HAD BLURTED OUT, THAT SHE HAD LIVED IN TURKEY. "EVA", HAD COMPLAINED, ABOUT HER ROOM AT THE SHELTER, NOT BEING WARM ENOUGH, AND NANCY NGANGA, HAD COME TO THE ROOM, TO SEE ABOUT THAT ISSUE. SHE HAD GIVEN "EVA" (WHICH IS ALSO AN ABREVIATION, OF HER FULL NAME), A STERN LOOK, AFTER SHE HAD BLURTED OUT, THAT SHE HAD LIVED IN TURKEY AND ALSO HAD A HOUSE IN KENYA. AND THAT SHE WAS NOT USED TO STAYING IN A SHELTER. "EVA", ALSO DID NOT ACT, LIKE A REFUGEE, (A PERSECUTED INDIVIDUAL), OR LOOK LIKE ONE EITHER, WEARING HER DESIGNER BOOTS AND A FUR (PROBABLY FAKE) PINK JACKET. AFTER HER REVEALING, INFORMATION, NANCY NGANGA, ALSO MOVED EVA, FROM THE ROOM THAT SHE WAS IN, ROOM # 221, TO ANOTHER ROOM, AT THE SHELTER.
A WEEK EARLIER, THE SUPERVISOR, NANCY NGANGA, ALSO REMOVED ANOTHER, KENYAN WOMAN, ANOTHER SO CALLED REFUGEE, FROM THE SAME ROOM, ROOM # 221, ALMOST IMMEDITELY, AFTER SHE CAME TO THE SHELTER, AND THIS TIME, TO A HOTEL, FOR REFUGEES, AFTER THE OTHER WOMAN, HAD ALSO, INADVERTENTLY, REVEALED, INFORMATION, ABOUT HER REFUGEE CLAIM, THAT WOULD HAVE ALSO, COMPROMISED, HER REFUGEE APPLICATION. SUCH AS, ALLEGEDLY, BEING TOLD TO  MEET SOMEONE, AT THE CANADA BORDER AND TO PAY THE MAN SOME MONEY. AFTER THAT INCIDENT, THE WOMAN NO LONGER SPOKE, IN ENGLISH, WHILE IN THE ROOM, BUT HER NATIVE KENYAN, LANGUAGE. PROBABLY SWAHILI, UNTIL SHE WAS THEN  REMOVED, TO THE HOTEL, BY NANCY NGANGA, THE SUPERVISOR, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER. 

THE NIGERIAN DIRECTOR, BLESSING ANYANWU AND THE KENYAN SUPERVISOR NANCY NGANGA, ALSO TOOK REPRISAL ACTIONS, AGAINST ANY RESIDENTS, WHO HAD ANY ISSUES, WITH A REFUGEE, AT THE SHELTER. EVEN TO THE POINT, OF MAKING FALSE ALLEGATIONS, ABOUT THOSE RESIDENTS, TO GET THEM KICKED OUT, OF THE SHELTER. THIS WAS DONE TO PROTECT, THE KENYAN, UGANDAN AND NIGERIAN, SO CALLED REFUGEES, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER. WHERE AT OTHER SHELTERS, THEY MAKE UP LESS, THAN 40% ,OF THE RESIDENTS, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, THE NUMBER IS FAR HIGHER, AT ABOUT 80-90%, OF THE RESIDENTS, ARE REFUGEES, FROM THOSE THREE COUNRIES. SINCE JANUARY 10, 2024, THE NUMBERS ARE ALSO A BIT LESS, AT ABOUT 70%, SINCE THE LONGER STAYING ONES, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN AT THE SHELTER, FOR FIVE MONTHS TO A YEAR, WERE ASKED TO FIND OTHER ACCOMMODATION, BY PEEL REGION, BACK IN JANUARY. PEEL REGION, ALSO FUNDS THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER. THERE ARE STILL SO CALLED REFUGEES, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, WHO HAVE ALSO BEEN THERE, SIX MONTHS OR LONGER, WHILE WAITING FOR THEIR REFUGEE APPLICATIONS TO BE APPROVED. AND UNDER, THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT, OF THE SHELTER, BLESSING AYANWU AND NANCY NGANGA, BOTH AFRICANS, THE AFRICAN "REFUGEES", AT THE SHELTER, KEPT ON COMING, IN LARGE NUMBERS, EVEN TODAY.  RUMORS, ALSO HAS IT, THAT THEY ARE ALSO, ALLEGEDLY, BEING PAID, FOR HELPING THOSE "REFUGEES", TO GET A BED AT THE SHELTER. THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO YOU DEFINED, "PAID". THIS COULD ALSO MEAN OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING, MONEY.  BUT "BEING PAID", OR "PAID OFF", UNDER A BRIBERY CHARGE, SIMPLY MEANS, GIVING, "SPECIAL CONSIDERATION", TO SUCH PERSONS, THAT THEY WOULD NOT NORMALLY RECEIVED, OTHERWISE. AND AS IT ALSO LOOKS, TO THE AVERAGE PERSON, THEY CERTAINLY, GAVE THOSE PERSONS, WHO HAVE CLAIMED, TO BE AND WHO ARE STILL CLAIMING, TO  BE "REFUGEES", "SPECIAL CONSIDERATION" AT THE VERY LEAST.  BECUASE, IT IS ALSO, VERY DIFFICULT, FOR THE REGULAR CANADIAN, TO GET INTO THAT SHELTER. THEY HAVE A LESS THAN TEN PERCENT CHANCE, OF GETTING INTO THAT SHELTER, DUE TO A LACK OF A BED, AT THE SHELTER. BEDS THAT NEARLY 70% OF THE PRESENT RESIDENTS, AT THE SHELTER, ARE ALSO CLAIMING TO BE REFUGESS, FROM THOSE THREE COUNTRIES. KENYA, UGANDA AND NIGERIA. WHY NOT ALSO HAVE REFUGEES, FROM SOMALIA, SYRIA, OR UKRAINE, AT THE SAME CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER? WHY ONLY KENYANS, MAINLY?. IS THIS BECAUSE OF THE PRESENT, KENYAN SUPERVISOR, NANCY NGANGA?. OR THE PRESENT NIGERIAN DIRECTOR, BLESSING ANYANWU?, AT THE CAWTHRA SHELTER?. 


ONE STAFF WAS WITNESSED, USING THE "F" WORD TO A RESIDENT. SHE WAS SEEN SHOUTING, AT THE RESIDENT AND SWEARING AT HER. IT WAS ALSO ALLEGED, THAT HER ACTION, WAS ALSO WITNESSED, BY HER FELLOW STAFF, WHO QUIETLY USHERED HER, IN THE STAFF ROOM, TO CALM HER DOWN. THE RESIDENT, WHO HAD WITNESSED, THIS ABUSE BY THE STAFF AND HAD ALSO, ALLEGEDLY, COMPLAINED, TO THE DIRECTOR, GOT NOWHERE, WITH HER COMPLAINT. SHE EVENTUALLY, LEFT THE SHELTER, SINCE SHE WAS ALSO SUFFERING, FROM CANCER AND WANTED TO GET AWAY, FROM THE SHELTER. THE STAFF IN QUESTION, WAS KEPT ON IN HER POSITION, LIKE THE REST OF THE OTHER ABUSIVE STAFF.

THE RECENT DEATH, OF A CANADIAN MALE, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, IN MISSISSAUGA, IN AN ALLEGED DRUG OVERDOSE, WAS ONE OF THE LATEST, INCIDENTS, AT THE SHELTER, WHERE THE BLAME, WAS BEING SQUARELY PLACED, ON THE MANAGEMENT, OF THE SHELTER.  IT WAS ALLEGED, THAT TWO REFUGEE CLAIMANTS, WHO HAD SHARED THE ROOM, WITH THE DECEASED, HAD GONE TO THE SUPERVISOR, NANCY NGANGA, TO TELL HER, THAT THE MAN, WAS IN THE BATHROOM, ALLEGEDLY, DOING DRUGS, AND SHE HAD TOLD THEM, ALLEGEDLY, THAT SHE WOULD COME TO THE ROOM, IN "TWENTY MINUTES", AFTER KNOWING, WHAT THE SITUATION WAS, AND THAT SHE ALSO NEVER DID. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RESIDENT, WAS ALSO SAID, TO HAVE WALKED OUT OF THE BATHROOM, AND FELL DOWN DEAD, IN THE ROOM.  AFTER THE PARAMEDICS CAME AND COULD NOT REVIVED HIM AND LATER THE POLICE, AS WELL AS THE CORONER, CAME TO THE SHELTER, REGARDING, THE DECEASED, RESIDENT, TO REMOVED HIS BODY.

MANY OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE SHELTER, ALSO FELT THAT THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE, ON THE PART OF THE SUPERVISOR, NANCY NGANGA, WHO ALSO THEY SAID, HAD A HABIT, OF TELLING THE RESIDENTS TO WAIT, WHEN CALLED UPON, TO ADDRESS AN ISSUE.  

SHE IS ALSO BLAMED, FOR SHOWING, NEPOTISM TO THE REFUGEES, FROM HER COUNTRY, KENYA, WHO ALSO CALLS HER, "MAMA",  AND WHERE SHE IS ALSO, REGULARLY, SEEN CONVERSING, WITH THEM, IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND EXCLUDING, THE OTHER RESIDENTS, WHO SPOKE ENGLISH. 

THE PEEL REGION, SUPERVISOR, FOR THE SHELTER, LISAMARIE MIDDLETON AND ALSO THE DIRECTOR OF SHELTER AND HOUSING, FOR PEEL REGION, AILEEN BAIRD, ALSO COVERED UP THE MATTER. 

THE ISSUE OF DRUG USE, AT THE SHELTER, IS ALSO A MAJOR PROBLEM. SOME OF THE RESIDENTS, ALSO SAID THAT THEY, DO NOT RULE OUT FOUL PLAY, IN THE DEATH OF THE RESIDENT.  HOWEVER WAY, THAT ONE CHOSE TO LOOK AT THE SITUATION, "TWENTY MINUTES", OR MORE, BY THE SUPERVISOR, NANCY NGANGA, WAS FAR TOO LONG, TO NOT INTERVENED, IN THAT SITUATION.  HAD SHE NOT TAKEN SO LONG, TO RESPOND, THE DEATH, MAY HAVE ALSO, BEEN PREVENTED. 

THE MOST RECENT OUTRAGEOUS, ISSUE, WAS THE LACK OF TOILET PAPER, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, IN MISSISSAUGA, LAST WEEK. AS WELL AS THE LACK OF HOT WATER, WHERE THE RESIDENTS, ALSO WENT FOR DAYS, WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO TAKE A HOT, (OR WARM) SHOWER. THE STAFF THEN MADE EXCUSES, THAT THEY WERE WORKING, ON THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM WAS "FIXED", AFTER A CALL TO THE MPP, FOR THE AREA. BUT THE RESIDENTS, ARE STILL LEFT WITHOUT A TOASTER, THAT WAS USED TO MAKE TOASTS, FOR THEIR BREAKFAST, IN THE MORNING. THEY ALSO COMPLAINED, THAT ALL THAT THEY GET FOR BREAKFAST, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, WAS BREAD TO MAKE TOAST AND DRY CEREAL AND TEA, OR COFFEE. FORGET ABOUT EGGS AND OTHER SUCH THINGS. NO PROTEIN. WITHOUT THE SINGLE TOASTER, THAT IS ALSO USED FOR THE 120 RESIDENTS OF THE SHELTER, MOST RESIDENTS, CHOSE TO FORGET ABOUT, GETTING ANY BREAKFAST, AT THE SHELTER. THIS SITUATION OF COURSE, IS ALSO PITIFUL, SINCE THE SHELTER AND THE SALVATION ARMY, GETS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, FROM THE REGION OF PEEL AND THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT, AS WELL AS MUCH FUNDING, FROM FINANCIAL DONORS, YET COULD NOT AFFORD, TO GET TOILET PAPER AND ANOTHER TOASTER, FOR THE RESIDENTS, OF THE SHELTER.

$665 MILLION DOLLARS, WAS ALLOTTED, FOR STAFF, AT THE SHELTER AND  FOR PEEL REGION, HOUSING, STAFF SALARY, SUCH AS THE DIRECTOR, AILEEN BAIRD'S SALARY, OF ALMOST A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS, YEARLY, WHICH SHE ALSO DO NOT DESERVED. WHILE THE POOR RESIDENTS, SUFFERED. 

THIS SOUNDS LIKE A SITUATION, WHERE THE AUDITOR GENERAL, SHOULD ALSO GET INVOLVED. TO ENSURE, THAT THE SERVICES, THAT THE RESIDENTS, ARE ALSO ENTITLED, IS ALSO PROVIDED TO THEM. 

THE LACK OF TRAINING, AMONG THE STAFF, AT THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, IS ALSO AT A CRISIS LEVEL. THE INCOMPETENCE, IS TO BE SEEN EVERYWHERE. FROM NOT BEING ABLE TO HANDLE, A MEDICAL SITUATION, TO VERBAL ABUSE AND A GENERAL LACK OF CONCERN, ON THEIR PART, FOR THE WELLBEING, OF THE RESIDENTS, OF THE SHELTER. 

AND THE SITUATION, HAS ALSO BEEN LONG STANDING. JUST BY TAKING A LOOK AT THE NEGATIVE, GOOGLE REVIEWS,  OF THE CAWTHRA ROAD SHELTER, WHERE THE FORMER RESIDENTS, SPEAKS OUT ON THE ATROCITIES, THAT GOES ON, AT THAT SHELTER. 

THE CURRENT DIRECTOR, OF SHELTER SUPPORT AND HOUSING, WITH PEEL REGION, AILEEN BAIRD, ALONG WITH LISAMARIE MIDDLETON AND THE CAWTHRA ROAD, DIRECTOR, BLESSING ANYANWU, ARE THE WORSE PERSONS, TO CONTINUE, WITH MANAGING THE SHELTER, DUE TO THE REPEAT, OF THE SITUATION THERE. THERE HAS BEEN NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE, IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SHELTER, AS FAR AS THE SERVICES, THAT ARE PROVIDED, TO THE RESIDENTS. DESPITE, THE GROSS AMOUNT OF FUNDING AND DONATIONS, THAT THE SHELTER, ALSO RECEIVES. 



Tuesday, November 7, 2023

A TORONTO JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS, CAUGHT ACTING CORRUPTLY. I HAVE POSTED A COURT DOCUMENT, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIGNED, BY HIM AND WHICH HE DID NOT DO. YET HE SENT, THE DOUCUMENT, TO THE PARTIES, UNSIGNED.

 THE LATEST CORRUPT, CANADIAN JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS, WHO HAVE ACTED, AGAINST ME, AS PART OF THE OVERALL, ATTACKS, THAT I HAVE FACED, FROM THEM.

THIS CORRUPT, ONTARIO JUDGE, AT THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, COURT, IN TORONTO, ACTIONS SPEAK, FOR THEMSELVES.

MY NUMBER ONE CHARGE, AGAINST HIM, WAS IN MAKING A FINAL DECISION, ON MY URGENT MOTIONS, FOR WHICH HE ALSO LACKED THE JURISDICTION, TO DO SO, AS THE CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE. FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, OR MANDATORY ORDER. HE THEN MADE HIMSELF, BOTH THE TRIAL JUDGE AND ALSO THE CASE CONFERENCE, JUDGE AND ALSO PROCEEDED, TO ACT AS BOTH, HEARING ORAL EVIDENCE, FROM THE RESPONDENTS, AT THE CASE CONFERENCE, WHO HAD NEITHER FILED AN AFFIDAVIT, IN SUPPORT OF THEIR STATEMENTS, NOR ANY RESPONDING MOTION MATERIALS.  ALL THIS CORRUPT JUDGE NEEDED, WAS THEIR ORAL STATEMENTS. HE ALSO SPENT A LOT OF TIME, ROLLING HIS EYES AT ME, AS IF TO SAY, "I DON'T WANT TO HEAR, FROM YOU". BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HAD ALLOWED THE RESPONDENTS, TO SPEAK, WITHOUT HIM, ALSO INTERUPTING THEM, AS HE HAD THE HABIT, OF INTERUPTING ME, AT THE CASE CONFERENCE. INCLUDING, MUTING MY MICROPHONE. AT ONE POINT, I TOLD THIS JUDGE, TO RECUSED HIMSELF, FROM MY CASE, BECAUSE OF HIS OBVIOUS BIAS AND SHOWING NO INTEREST, IN THE HARM DONE TO ME, BY THE RESPONDENTS, IN LOCKING ME OUT OF MY HOME. HE EVEN TOLD ME, TO TAKE MY MATTER TO THE LTB, WHICH HE ALSO KNEW, WOULD NOT HEAR THE MATTER, ON MY BEHALF. THAT ONLY THE COURT, COULD GRANT ME THE RELIEF, THAT I HAD SOUGHT, FROM THE COURT. AND THE FINAL STRAW, WAS THE ENDORSEMENT, THAT HE HAD THE CLERK SENT TO ME, THAT HE ALSO DID NOT SIGNED, OR HAD THE DOCUMENT, FILLED OUT COMPLETELY, BY THE COURT. (See the evidence, posted below, of the document, which I had also blackened out, the details of it, from the public. I wanted the public to see, the document that the judge had written his statements about, without bothering to sign it. Or even to have the documents, prepared properly. And to mock me and the situation, this same judge, Obrien Chamlers, and the clerk, also wanted me to served the respondents, the same document, of his endorsement, without him actually signing and making official, that document.

A Superior Court of Justice 
judge in Toronto, Ontario Canada

WHAT THIS CORRUPT JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS, DID AT THE CASE CONFERENCE, TODAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2023.
1. HE BROUGHT UP AND WENT INTO MUCH DETAILS, ABOUT AN OLD CASE, THAT I HAD FILED, IN THE DIV. COURT, AGAINST BARNEY RIVERS INVESTMENT LTD. TWO YEARS AGO AND THEN USED THAT CASE, AS A REFERENCE, TO MAKING HIS DECISION, TODAY, TO NOT GRANT ME, THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, OR MANDATORY ORDER, THAT I WAS SEEKING, WITH THE URGENT MOTION, THAT I HAD FILED. 

2. HE HEARD FULL EVIDENCE, FROM THE RESPONDENTS, WHEN THEY HAD NOT EVEN FILED, ANY RESPONDING MOTION MATERIALS, WITH THE COURT. INCLUDING, AN AFFIDAVIT, YET ACCEPTED, THEIR STATEMENTS, AS THE TRUTH. 

3. HE MADE THE DECISION, AT THE CASE CONFERENCE, HEARING, TODAY, THAT THE URGENT MOTION, FOR A MANDATORY ORDER, WAS ALSO NOT GOING TO GO, TO A HEARING, OR TRIAL. THAT HE WAS GOING TO END, THE MATTER, RIGHT THERE, AT THE CONFERENCE HEARING, BY DENYING, THE ORDER SOUGHT. SO HE WAS BOTH THE CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE AND THE TRIAL JUDGE, ALL IN ONE. WHICH IS NOT HOW, THIS MATTER, IS TO BE HANDLED, BY THE COURT. 
4. HE BANNED, ALL RECORDING OF HIS ACTIONS, KNOWING, THAT HE WAS GOING TO ACT CURRUPTLY, IN THE MATTER AND WANTED NO RECORD, OF HIS ACTIONS, TO BE MADE PUBLIC.

                                        5. HE MADE A SECOND ENDORSEMENT, OF HIS                             DECISION, OF THE CASE CONFERENCE, THAT WAS HEARD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2023, AT 8:30 A.M.  AND WHEN I HAD ASKED FOR ANOTHER COPY, THINKING THAT I HAD LOST THE COPY THAT WAS SENT TO ME, HIS ASSITANT THEN SIMPLY ASKED, FOR THE ENTIRE ENDORSEMENT, TO BE RECALLED.  THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE JUDGE, SHOWED A LACK OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, WHEN HE OPENLY DISCUSSED, A PREVIOUS CASE THAT I HAD IN THE DIVISIONAL CASE, THAT WAS SIMILAR TO THE PRESENT CASE AND HOW HE HAD USED THAT CASE, TO DETERMINED THE OUTCOME, OF THE PRESENT CASE. TO MOOT THE CASE AND TO PREVENT IT FROM HAVING, A HEARING. 

NOTICE THAT THIS COURRUPT JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS, DID NOT SIGN THIS DOCUMENT, THAT HE HAD THE COURT, SENT TO ME, SO THAT I COULD SERVE IT, ON THE RESPONDENTS. HE ALSO LEFT OUT, OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION,
SUCH AS THE RELIEF SOUGHT.
HE ALSO DISMISSED, AT THE CASE CONFERENCE, AN URGENT MOTION, FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER, TO STOP THE ILLEGAL EVICTION, WITHOUT AN EVICTION ORDER, AFTER I WAS LOCKED OUT OF MY HOME, BY THE LANDLOD,



MORE ABOUT THIS CORRUPT JUDGE, OBRIEN CHALMERS
HE IS ALSO, A DEFENDANT, WHO WILL BE FACING CHARGES, BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRMINAL, AGAINST ME.
AS A CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE, HE HEARD FULL EVIDENCE, FROM THE RESPONDENTS, WITHOUT THEM, PUTTING THEIR RESPONS
This judge, acted as a case conference judge, when I had filed an urgent motion, for an interlocutory injunction and for a mandatory order, after being illegally forced out of my home, without an eviction order. As a case conference judge, he, then "heard the case", including, the hearing of evidence, from the witnesses and then made his decision, that the matter will not go for a hearing, and decided, not to grant the interlocutory order, that I was seeking, to stop the landlord's actions, against me. This judge also had never considered, that harm done to me, as a result of the actions of 

He also read out loud, to all of the participants, at the case conference, that was held this morning, a prior case, that I had filed, against Barney Rivers Investments, Ltd. two years ago, which he had dug up and read at the case conference. And also based his decision on, which was that I should apply to the When I mentioned that his actions, had prejudiced me, by discussing a previous case, at the case conference, that was also not before the court, today, and was a case, that before the Div. Ct, two years ago, he said nothing. He also made the clerk read out loud, at the case conference, about the prohibition, of recording a hearing, just to make sure that his corrupt actions, will not be exposed. He was wrong!!. 
I am exposing, the fact that this judge, aside from his personal bias and attacks against me, acted against the administration of justice. He had the clerk sent me an endorsement document, WHICH THE JUDGE, OBRIEN, CHALMERS, also did not sign, or had the clerk filled out, the endorsement form. that the court had instructed me, to serve a copy on the other parties. I have posted page 1 and 2, of the documents here, on my blog.


UPDATE:  A SECOND ENDORSEMENT, OF THE CASE CONFERENCE, HEARING, ON NOVEMBER 7, 2023, WAS SENT OUT TO ME, ON NOV. 8TH, BY EMAIL AND WAS RECALLED, BY THE JUDGE'S ASSISTANT, ANNA MARIA TIBERIO. 
See the conversation below

Recall: Re: Guillaume v. Crawwford - Endorsement dated Nov 8, 2023 - Chalmers J

Inbox

  Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD)

Nov 8, 2023, 12:21PM (5 days ago)

to me

Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) would like to recall the message, "Re: Guillaume v. Crawwford - Endorsement dated Nov 8, 2023 - Chalmers J".


Nov 8, 2023, 12:21
PM (5 days ago)

 

Val Henry Guillaume 

Nov 9, 2023, 5:39PM (4 days ago)

to Anna

Could you explain, why you would recalled this document?.  I am actually, demanding that you do, as part of this legal process and my right to know this information.

 

Valerie Guillaume

 

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 12:21 PM Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) <AnnaMaria.Tiberio@ontario.ca> wrote:

Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) would like to recall the message, "Re: Guillaume v. Crawwford - Endorsement dated Nov 8, 2023 - Chalmers J".


 

HERE IS THE FULL CONVERSATION: 

 

Val Henry Guillaume 

Wed, Nov 8, 12:03PM (5 days ago)

to Civil

Could you send me that document again?. I can't seem to find it. I am here referring to, the endorsement of the judge, Chalmers O.

 

Thanks

 

Valerie Guillaume

Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto

Nov 8, 2023, 12:27PM (5 days ago)

to me

Good afternoon,

 I do not have the endorsement from the last case conference.

Please reach out to the judicial assistant for a copy of the endorsement.

 

 

From: Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com>
Sent: November 8, 2023 12:03 PM
To: Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto <CivilUrgentMatters-SCJ-Toronto@ontario.ca>
Subject: Re: GUILLAUME v CRAWWFORD CV-23-00708528-0000 - Endorsement dated Nov 6, 2023 - Chalmers J

 

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

Could you send me that document again?. I can't seem to find it. I am here referring to, the endorsement of the judge, Chalmers O.

 

Thanks

 

Valerie Guillaume

 

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 11:32 AM Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com> wrote:

I will do so.

 

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 11:00 AM Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto <CivilUrgentMatters-SCJ-Toronto@ontario.ca> wrote:

Good morning,

 

Please reach out to the judicial assistant for a copy of the endorsement.

 

From: Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com>
Sent: November 8, 2023 10:59 AM
To: Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto <CivilUrgentMatters-SCJ-Toronto@ontario.ca>; palacemason@gmail.comBPARDIS@BIJANPARDIS.COM
Subject: Fwd: GUILLAUME v CRAWWFORD CV-23-00708528-0000 - Endorsement dated Nov 6, 2023 - Chalmers J

 

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

To: the Superior Court of Justice

     Civil Urgent Matters

 

This is a reminder, to my earlier email to you, in regards to getting the judge's endorsement, for the case conference hearing, regarding the urgent motions, that was held yesterday, on November 7, 2023. As I had mentioned previously, A CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE, CANNOT MAKE ANY FINAL DECISION, ON THE MATTER, SINCE HE IS NOT THE TRIAL JUDGE. ONLY THE TRIAL JUDGE, CAN MAKE A FINAL DECISION, ON THE URGENT MOTIONS.  AND THAT WOULD ALSO  BE DONE, AFTER A HEARING. A case conference judge, as Chalmers O. was yesterday, do not have the jurisdiction, to determine, the final outcome, of those matters that I have before the court, currently. First of all, he was privy to information, at the case conference hearing yesterday, that a trial judge would not have. Case conference hearings, are also not generally recorded and an oral hearing on a motion, by a trial judge, is recorded. The judge also cannot be both a trial judge and also the case conference judge, on the matter. That is against the law and practices of the court. In one of my other previous matters, that was before the Divisional court, I had to ask the case conference judge, Justice Corbett, to recused himself, from being the trial judge, in my civil matter, before that court. In fact, he even recused himself, from continuing to be the case conference judge, with regards to that matter. At the case conference hearing, with the judge, Chalmers O. I also asked him, to recused himself, because of his personal bias and I will follow the practice of the court and put my request in a motion, for him to removed himself, from being the case conference judge, who is monitoring the case. And he also certainly, will not be the trial judge, handling my urgent motions, as well. While the court has continued to delay, the hearing of my urgent motions, that are before the court, I also continue to suffer harm, which is not the purpose of the court to do, regarding my legal rights. 

 

I choose to disregard, the case conference judge, Chalmers O. about the finality of my urgent motions, since the urgent motion, has not been heard as yet, outside of the case conference, which was not intended to be a trial. Instead of having the respondents, give their evidence at the trial, or by way of a sworn affidavit, as part of their written responding motion record, the case conference judge, had them rambling on about their evidence, which he also took as the truth, without them swearing or affirming, under oath, to tell the truth. Needless to say, there was a lot of things that were wrong, with the case conference judge's actions, yesterday, that will also be investigated.  I also have the option, to have the Ontario Judicial Council, investigate his actions. This judge knows the difference, or ought to have known the difference, between the two roles, that are mandated by the practices of the court and also under the law, concerning a case conference hearing, by a judge and a trial hearing, by a trial judge. A case conference judge, manages the case and can also, if the parties consented, resolved some of the issues, before a trial. Whatever is discussed at a case conference hearing, is almost never heard at a trial. This is also one of the reasons, why a judge who manages a case conference, cannot also be the same judge, who conducts the hearing, or trial, on the motion that was filed. Such a trial would not be a fair one.  

 

I am still expecting, that my urgent motions be heard, preferably, by a difference case conference judge and also that a trial date, be also set for a hearing on the urgent motion, since this case conference judge, has now asked that the respondents, be served with the urgent motion. And it is no longer a motion, that was made without notice. Likewise, the respondents are now mandated, under the Rules, to serve their responding motion materials on me and to then file it with the court. After which a hearing, to decide the outcome of the case, will be then set by the court. 

 

I am expecting the court, to respond to this inquiry, so that my matter can proceed, as it should, in the court.

 

Valerie Guillaume

 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: 
Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 2:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: GUILLAUME v CRAWWFORD CV-23-00708528-0000 - Endorsement dated Nov 6, 2023 - Chalmers J
To: Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) <AnnaMaria.Tiberio@ontario.ca>, Civil Urgent Matters-SCJ-Toronto <Civilurgentmatters-SCJ-Toronto@ontario.ca>

 

There was a case conference, that was held this morning, by the judge, Obrien Chalmers and the matter will be looked into further. As the case conference judge, he has taken it upon himself, to claim that the urgent motions, will no longer go any further, with the court. He has no legal jurisdiction, to do that, since he is not the trial judge, who is hearing the motions. A case conference judge, cannot hear evidence at the case conference and then to make a decision, on the motions, to end it.  His actions will be investigated, by the Ontario Judicial Council. He lacked the jurisdiction, to make any kind of final outcome, with regards to the urgent motions, that I have filed with the court. And he cannot be both the case conference judge, and also the trial judge, on the same case. 

As such, I would like a hearing, scheduled for my urgent motion, as this case conference, obviously, did not go in my favor. Either, another judge has to be assigned to this case, since I have also asked this same judge, Chalmers, to recused himself, from the case. The court must continue to proceed with this matter, since a case conference judge, cannot end the matter, without a hearing first, on the matter. And that is the role of the trial judge and not the case conference judge,in order to make sure that the process was fair to me. You can provide me, with the judge's endorsement, in writing, for todays, case conference hearing and I need that asap, in order to proceed with my complaint, against that judge, as well as to proceed with the matter, before the court.

 

Valerie Guillaume

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: 
Val Henry Guillaume <valguillaume4@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: GUILLAUME v CRAWWFORD CV-23-00708528-0000 - Endorsement dated Nov 6, 2023 - Chalmers J
To: Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) <AnnaMaria.Tiberio@ontario.ca>

 

I will be filing a complaint, with the judicial council, against the judge, for issuing this document, that he also did not sign, knowingly, as part of his corruption.

 

Valerie Guillaume

 

On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 1:47 PM Tiberio, Anna Maria (JUD) <AnnaMaria.Tiberio@ontario.ca> wrote:

Good Afternoon,

 

On behalf of Justice Chalmers, attached please find the endorsement on the above-noted matter.  If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.

 

Please confirm receipt of this e-mail.

 

Thank you

Anna Maria Tiberio

Judicial Assistant to Justice Lococo, Justice Nakonechny,

Justice Chalmers, and Justice Pinto

361 University Avenue, Room 140

Toronto, Ontario M5G 1T3

Tel: (416) 327-5284

 

PLEASE NOTE:

Under Rule 1.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, no party to the proceeding and no party’s lawyer shall communicate about the proceeding with a judge out of court directly or indirectly unless (a) all the parties consent in advance to the out-of-court communication or (b) the court orders otherwise.

Judges have asked that you comply with Rule 1.09 and cease from sending any communication directly to them, whether by e-mail, letter, or otherwise.

Thank you

 

ReplyForward