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).