UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION IN ONE OF CANADA'S HIGHEST COURTS: THE COURT OF APPEAL.
About the Court of Appeals: It is especially mandated, to protect those rights, of the individual, under the Charter of Rights and Freedom.
It is the Court of Appeal, which is also supposed to set the moral, or ethical standards, that other courts has to follow and yet has acted even more corruptly. This corruption, involved both the administrative staff, of the court, as well as the judges. And combined, their personal actions, has also interfered, with the cases that are before that court.
Closed Door Hearings: The Court of Appeal, does any, or all of
these four things during my hearings.
1. It either conducts the hearing, in a courtroom, where
no other members of the public are present, or
2. Leave the case for the very last, when the courtroom
is totally empty of people, both lawyers, or members of the public.
3. If lawyers are present, but no other members of the public,
the judge, or judges, will also delay his ruling and make no decisions
at the time of the hearing.
4. Dismisses all of my cases.
And other Canadian courts, in regards to my hearings, even
go so far as to lock the door, entirely, keeping the public out. For this
I also have proof from witnesses, who has tried to sit in, on those
proceedings, involving my case.
The Deputy Registrar: Sandra Theroulde's personal influence regarding my case. "You cannot file your motion, it would be too many motions before the court". It was my second motion and also in response, to the respondent's motion.
Judge Susan Lang: who has led the panel of Judges, regarding my appeal case and also acted corruptly. She did "everything that a judge should not do", at the hearing.
The others Judges of the panel, also included, Judges Gloria Epstein and Alexanda Hoy. The Single Judge of the Court of Appeal who also acted corruptly, in his decision regarding my case, is J.A. Doherty, and whose decision I was also reviewing, before the panel, of likewise corrupt judges.
How the Individual Rights and Freedom, were further violated by the Court of Appeal In This Case..
Concerning The Issues That Were Relevant To The Case And Also What The Court of Appeal Also Ruled On: (a)Whether or not the court of appeal, or the divisional court, had the jurisdiction to hear my appeal, which was from a final order of the superior court of justice. To make it also clear, the divisional court only hears cases involving matters of law only, while the court of appeal, hear those cases involving errors of law, fact and of mix fact and law, which are also the grounds of my appeal and therefore it should not be heard in the divisional court, which has no jurisdiction to hear the case. (b) And further to this fact, I was also seeking the relief from the court of appeal, based on the equitable jurisdiction of the court of appeal, which it also has the power to do and should the jurisdiction of that court, concerning my appeal, comes into question.
What the Court of Appeal did not do in my case:
- It did not grant me any relief, that I had also requested, under the equitable jurisdiction, of the court, to do so and against all penalties and forfeitures, in regards to my case.
- It ignored the precedents that were set by earlier cases, in the court of appeal, that were also similar to my case, before the court of appeal.
- This request was also made because the Respondent's lawyer, Paula Boutis, of Iler Campbell Law Firm, in Toronto, had also claimed, in her motion to quash my appeal, in the court of appeal, that the court also had no jurisdiction, to hear my appeal and that it should be heard in the Divisional court instead. Something which the panel of corrupt judges, also agreed upon and more importantly, in regards to their decision on that matter, to also overlook, in regards to the other precedents, that were also set, in the court of appeal, regarding other similar cases, to mine, that were also heard by the court of appeal. I also mentioned two cases in particular, at the hearing, as a case law reference. The McBride verses Comfort Housing Cooperative and the Eckrit verses the Mckay case, as well as others.
All of these precedents in the court of appeal, were also overlooked by the panel of judges, regarding my case.
- The first sign of degeneracy, in regards to my case and also on the part of the court, has to do with the panel of judges. It began with one of my motion record documents, that was also filed with the court of appeal and to be heard, was also mising and the panel acknowledging, that it only had 2 copies, of the 3 copies, I had also filed, for each of my two motions, to be heard that day. It also became apparent by their statements, that that the judges of the panel, had also not read the motion records, containing my factum and affidavit and other materials, before the hearing, making inferences, or other statements, to such.
- The third matter that was also filed, involved the respondent's motion to quash my appeal and I was also contesting that motion, due to lack of service, on the part of their lawyer, Paula Boutis. According to the the Deputy Registrar Sandra Theroulde, she had added the respondent's motion, on the list, to be heard with my motion, even though the respondent's lawyer, had also made no such requests, to the court of appeal, to have her motion heard sooner. My original motion was to set aside the order of the single judge, to which the administrative staff, also added the respondent's motion, to quash my appeal. The court then sent me the confirmation copies, of both motions, to be heard on the same day and at the same time, as sheduled by the court of appeal.
- Initially, also, the Deputy Registrar, of the Court of Appeal, Sandra Theroulde, had also refused, to allow me to file a motion, in the court of appeal, for lack of service, by the respondent's lawyer, Paula Boutis, because she also feared, that, it would also prevent the respondent's motion, which was to quash my appeal, from going forward in the court. Sandra Theroulde also instructed, the court of appeal staff, to not file my motion, for several days and commented, also, that she had to get further legal advise, if I could file that motion. She also commented, at the time, that, "It would be too many motions before the court". The court later changed its mind and allowed me to file my motion, with my evidence, in response the the respondent's motion, that was already in the court and which the court's administrative staff, was also pushing to be heard before the usual time.
The Deputy Registrar Sandra Theroulde, to which the respondent's lawyer, Paula Boutis, had also sent several letters, via emails, and concerning my appeal, without also the consent of either the judge, or me, had also commented, in regards to adding the respondent's motion to my matter, that was to be heard at the same time, that, "Should the respondent's motion be heard before yours, then there would be no point in hearing your motion". Which I also felt was bias on her part. This is also exactly what has happened. In my opinion, both the Deputy Registrar and the panel of judges, had arranged it to be so. Their personal influence was that obvious.
In my motion record, as well, which the court had also prevented me from filing and later also was never read, by the panel of judges, at the hearing of the motion, for which they also convened, briefly, to respond to that evidence, that was also filed beforehand, mind you and in which I also provided, documentary evidence, concerning the actions of the respondent's lawyer, Paula Boutis, in regards to the motion, for lack of service to me, regarding that motion and also on others. One of which was a letter, from a dispatcher, Jim Priestman, of Away Courier service, whose letter to me, also contained, contradictory evidence, about the methods of service, that was also done and that was also based, on the instructions, of Paula Boutis, the respondent's lawyer. Paula Boutis then later commented to me, on March 5, 2012, at the court, in regards to those discrepancies, that, "It was no big deal". None of those evidence, were also taken into consideration, by the panel of judges. For instance, Paula Boutis's written statements, in her letter to me, also contradicted, the written statements, in the letter of Jim Priestman, who also stated otherwise, concerning an earlier service, that was provided by him and also on her behalf.
The panel also did not respond, to questions put by me, when I asked the court and also the lawyer, Paula Boutis, why she did not mentioned, when she was served with my notice of appeal, on February 15, 2012, that it was also, according to her, filed in the "wrong" court and not even in her letter to me dated February 16, 2012, in which she also acknowledged, the notice of appeal. She only mentioned this "error", of filing in the so-called "wrong court", after the time to appeal in the divisional court had expired, on February 21, 2012 and in her letter to me, dated February 23, 2012. Again the court of appeal overlooked her moral obligation and her actions to act properly in regards to this.
- There was also an apparent apprehension of bias, on the part of the panel of judges and especially, by Susan Lang, who also led the panel, where she has overlooked both the rights of the Appellant, in this case, as well as to overlook some other crucial factors, concerning the case. Not the least of which were also the precedents of that court and also the actions of the Respondent's lawyer, Paula Boutis, of Iler Campbell Law Firm, in her attempts to frustrate, the proceedings of the court, including, by stating that the Court of Appeal, had no jurisdiction, to hear my appeal and that it should be heard in the Divisional Court instead. Something which she could also not back up by law, as I have also done, at the motion to quash my appeal, in the court of appeal and that was also heard by the panel of judges, also mentioned. Nevertheless, the panel of corrupt judges, also sided with her, in regards to that matter.
Susan Lang's apprehension of bias, was also evident, when she allowed: (1)The respondent's lawyer, Paula Boutis, to present evidence to the court, at the hearing and also without serving the other party a copy. (2)Allowed the respondent's lawyer to serve her motion materials, on me at the hearing and then adjourned the hearing for 30 minutes, so that I could read the material, and then resumed the hearing, so that she could proceed with her motion to quash my appeal. (3) Acted openly bias and even going so far, as to ignore questions, put to her and the court, in regards to the respondent's lawyer's actions. Judge Susan Lang commented, that, it is up to the respondent's lawyer Paula Boutis, if she wanted to answer the questions, put to her and the court by me. (4) Kept whispering, repeatedly, to one of the other judges sitting beside her and also apparently discussing the case, openly, with her in the courtroom. (5) Left no doubt in my mind, that, she had a predisposed position, in regards to the case, which would also explain some of her actions, as well and was also proceeding, with the hearing in that manner, which was also bias against me and also commented, in regards to the lack of service, by the respondent's lawyer Paula Boutis, to me, that, "I argued my case very well, which means also that I was served by the respondent's lawyer", and disregarding the fact, that, I had also filed more than one motion record material, with the court of appeal and was forced to quote the case law references, from the books of authorities, for both motions, before the court. One of them and also the most important one, in regards to my motion, for a review, of the single judge's order, that was also filed much earlier and from which I also quoted from mostly.
It is not a small matter, when someone bring those kinds of accussations, against one of the highest courts of Canada. This should also show the level of corruption, and systematic bias, that the Canadian courts, seem to also dole out to some people and not others. Which is also a documented fact. It is also extremely important, for this kind of corruption, by one of Canada's highest court, to also be exposed, due to the detrimental effect, that it also has on the people, who has to appear before that court and whose lives are further destroyed, by the actions on the part of the judges, of the court of appeal. Who also cares nothing about the rights of the person, or appellant in this case, but only in furthering their own personal agendas, and at the expense of the personal rights and freedom of the individual, according to human rights standards everywhere.