SYSTEMATIC RACISM, IS PRACTICED, IN THE CANADIAN COURTS. I AM EXPOSING, AN ONTARIO JUDGE, GRANT DOW, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IN TORONTO, WHO IS A CANADIAN JUDGE, THAT PRACTICES RACISM, GAINST BLACKS.

I AM DECLARING, THAT THIS TORONTO JUDGE, GRANT DOW, IS A RACIST AND PRACTICES, SYSTEMATIC RACISM, IN THE CANADIAN COURT, AGAINST BLACKS. 

I AM A BLACK WOMAN AND IT IS MY DUTY, TO EXPOSE, SYSTEMATIC RACISM, AGAINST BLACKS, THAT IS PRACTICED, IN THE CANADIAN COURTS, BY SOME , IF NOT BY MOST JUDGES.  JUDGES LIKE THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE JUDGE, GRANT DOW.  

IN ORDER TO ERADICATE, THIS FORM OF DISCRIMINATION, IT IS ALSO NECESSARY, TO EXPOSED, THE PERPETRATORS OF IT. HENCE, I AM EXPOSING, JUDGE GRANT DOW, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IN TORONTO, WHO IS A RACIST.

TORONTO JUDGE, GRANT DOW,
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE IN TORONTO

I  AM CONVINCED, THAT HAD I BEEN A WHITE WOMAN, WHOSE CASE WAS ALSO BEFORE THIS JUDGE, HE WOULD HAVE ALSO, ACTED DIFFERENTLY.

AND IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, IF A JUDGE PRACTICES, SYSTEMATIC RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION, HE ALSO BRINGS, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, INTO DISREPUTE. THEY GO TOGETHER. 

AND WHEN THAT IS ALSO MINGLED, WITH HIS OWN PERSONAL BIAS, THAT OFTEN SHOWS UP, WITH HIS CORRUPT PRACTICES, THEN THIS IS OFTEN THE RESULT. AN ORDER THAT IS VAGUE AND HAD OTHER OBJECTIVES, SINCE HE DID NOT COME RIGHT OUT AND DISMISSED, THE URGENT MOTION, BUT TO SKIRT AROUND THE ISSUE, TO THE POINT OF TRIVIALIZING, THE URGENCY OF THE MOTION. HERE IS WHAT HE HAD SAID, IN THE ENDORSEMENT, THAT HE HAS MADE, REGARDING MY URGENT MOTION, FOR THE MANDATORY ORDER, OR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION. 

[1] "THE MATTER WAS DIRECTED TO ME BY THE URGENT MOTIONS OFFICE.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT NOR ANY REASON GIVEN FOR PROCEEDING WITH OUT GIVING NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT (ASIDE FROM URGENCY)". 

 (Notice how he also downplayed the, urgency, of the situation, by his statement and also actions). This is also one of the key factors, in coming to terms, with a judge, like Grant Dow, who have acted bias, or has discriminated, against the person, in other so called "protected" areas of the law, such as racism and discrimination, based on other factors.

[2] "MS GUILLAUME SEEKS INTERIM INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO PREVENT THE RESPONDENT FROM EVICTING HER FROM THEIR TEMPORARY SHELTER, [...] WHILE SHE SEARCHES FOR ALETERNATIVE SHELTER".

[3] "AS A RESULT, I DECLINE TO MAKE THE ORDER REQUESTED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO IT BEING RENEWED FOLLOWING SERVICE OF THIS APPLICATION".

[4] "I URGE MS GUILLAUME TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE.  FURTHER, MAY I SUGGEST SHE CONSIDER EITHER REISSUING HER CLAM AT THE BRAMPTON OFFICE OF THIS COURT LOCATED AT 7755 HURONTARIO STREET, MISSISSAUGA (OR REQUEST THAT IT BEE TRANSFERRED THERE) AS IT APPEARS BOTH PARTIES ARE LOCATED CLOSER TO THAT OFFICE AND WITHIN THAT JUDICIAL REGION". 

End of the Endorsement.

NOTICE HOW THIS RACIST JUDGE, SHOWED, HOW HE ALSO CARED, VERY LITTLE, IF THE MOVING PARTY (THIS BLACK WOMAN), ALSO SUFFERS ANY FURTHER HARM, IF SHE WAS EVICTED FROM THE SHELTER, AND HOW HE ALSO SKIRTED AROUND THE ISSUE, BY TELLING HER TO REQUEST, THAT THE CASE ALSO  BE TRANSFERRED, TO ANOTHER REGION, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, DID NOT COME OUT AND SAY, THAT HE WAS DISMISSING, HER URGENT MOTION.  (RATHER, BY DIRECTING, THAT SHE SERVED, THE EX-PARTE MOTION, ON THE RESPONDENT). AND IN WHICH CASE, HE WOULD HAVE ALSO, HAD TO PROVIDE HIS REASONS, FOR DOING SO. REGARDLESS, HE IS MANDATED, TO PROVIDE REASONS, FOR HIS DECISION. WHICH HE ALSO DID NOT DO, IN THIS CASE. 

A JUDGE, IS MANDATED, TO ACT, ETHICALLY AND MORALLY AND TO CONSIDER, NOT ONLY THE LAW, WHEN DEALING WITH CASES, BUT ALSO TO CONSIDER, THE IMPACT OF THE DECISION, ON THE PERSON, BEFORE THE COURT.  THIS HAS TO DO WITH PROTECTING, THEIR SO CALLED, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,  SUCH AS THOSE "GUARANTEED RIGHTS", UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, AS WELL AS IN REGARDS TO, PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS. WHICH MUST ALSO BE BASED, ON A JUDGE, WHO ACTS OBJECTIVELY, AND WHOSE OPINIONS AND ACTIONS, SHOULD ALSO BE FREE FROM HIS OWN, PERSONAL BIAS AND OTHER INJUSTICES.  THAT ALSO MEANS, THAT THE HEARING, HAS TO BE A FAIR ONE.  A LACK OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND HENCE A LACK OF NATURAL JUSTICE, IS AN ERROR OF LAW. WHICH IS ALSO GROUNDS, TO HAVE A JUDGE'S DECISION, SET ASIDE AND HIS ACTIONS, LOOKED INTO FURTHER, TO SEE IF IT GOES ANY DEEPER, THAN THAT.  (SUCH AS AN ACTION BY THE JUDGE, OR COURT, THAT WOULD ALSO SHOW, THE INJUSTICE OF, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, THAT WAS ALSO METED OUT BY THE JUDGE, IN THIS CASE).  TO PROTECT THE LITIGANT RIGHTS AND ALSO TO PROTECT, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, BY THE COURT.  WHICH THE CANADIAN COURTS, DO NOT PRACTICE, OR IMPLEMENTS, IN MY CASE.

THIS TORONTO JUDGE, GRANT DOW, ALSO GAVE NO REASONS, FOR HIS DECISION, OTHER THAN TO MAKE, THE ENDORSEMENT. JUDGES ARE ALSO MANDATED, TO GIVE REASONS, OTHERWISE, THE HEARING OF THE CASE, WOULD ALSO LACK PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.  IN MY MATTER, THE JUDGE MADE A ONE PAGE, ENDORSEMENT, THAT WAS ALSO DELIBERATELY, WORDED, TO BE AMIBIGIOUS AND EVEN MORE SO, WITHOUT HIS REASONS.  AT FIRST GLANCE, IT APPEARS TO BE CLEAR, BUT WHEN YOU REALIZED, THAT HE HAD REQUIRED, THAT SERVICE BE MADE, UPON THE RESPONDENT, BEFORE THE COURT WOULD, ALSO HEAR THE CASE, YOU REALIZED ALSO, THAT THE CASE WAS, NOT CONCLUDED. (AS THE RESPONDENT, IS ALSO, CURRENTLY, TREATING THE MATTER). IF IT WAS ENDED, THE MOVING PARTY, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TOLD, TO SERVE THE OTHER PARTY, WITH HER URGENT MOTION DOCUMENTS, WHERE THE COURT WOULD ALSO HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES, AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE, MOTION DOCUMENTS, WERE ALSO FILED WITH THE COURT.  THAT IS WHAT USUSALLY HAPPENS, IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS.  THE MATTER IS SUPPOSE TO CONTINUE, AFTER THE RESPONDENT, IS SERVED, WITH THE MOVING PARTY'S MOTION, THAT WAS FILED AS AN EX-PARTE MOTION.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS A MATTER THAT WAS INTENDED, FOR THE COURT TO HEAR LATER ON, AFTER SERVICE WAS MADE AND TO DECIDE ON THE ISSUES, BASED ON THE MERITS.

AS TO THE JUDGE, GRANT DOW, INSTEAD OF HEARING, THE URGENT MOTION, THAT WAS SITTING ON HIS DESK, THAT HE HAD DELAYED, THE ENTIRE DAY AND EVEN BEYOND THAT DAY, TO THE NEXT DAY,  AND WORSE, TELLING THE LITIGANT, TO TRANSFER HER URGENT MOTION, TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION, WHICH WOULD ALSO DELAY IT FURTHER, SINCE HE HIMSELF, WOULD ALSO NOT HEAR, THE URGENT MOTION, AS AN EXPARTE MOTION, WAS HIS EXCUSE. HE COULD HAVE ALSO MADE,  A MORE "JUST" DECISION.  ONE THAT TOOK INTO FACTOR, THE HARM THAT  THE MOVING PARTY, WOULD ALSO SUFFER, IF HER MATTER WAS DELAYED, INDEFINITELY, AS HIS ENDORSEMENT, ALSO INDICATED, SINCE HE ALSO LEFT IT UP TO HER, IN HIS ENDORSEMENT, TO DECIDE ON HOW, SHE WAS GOING TO ACT UPON THE ORDER MADE.  NO WONDER HE ALSO INCLUDED IN HIS STATEMENTS, IN THE SAID ENDORSEMENT, "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", WHICH COULD ALSO HAVE A DOUBLE MEANING.  ON THE ONE HAND, IT COULD MEAN THAT HE WAS JUST PROTECTING, HIS STATEMENT AND HIMSELF.  AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THE "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", COULD ALSO MEAN, THAT THE LITIGATION, WAS CLEARLY NOT OVER.   AND THAT IT WAS ALSO INTENDED, TO "PRESERVED, THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES", UNTIL THE COURT HEARS THEIR MOTIONS, AT A LATER TIME. THIS PRECEDENT, WAS MADE BY ANOTHER JUDGE, JUSTIE PRICE, ON HIS VIEW, OF WHAT AN ORDER, (OR ENDORSEMENT, FROM A JUDGE), USING THE TERM, "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", IN HIS ORDER, MEANS LEGALLY.   IN THAT REGARD, IT WAS A "PROTECTIVE CLAUSE" INSERTED INTO THE ORDER, TO PROTECT BOTH PARTIES. IT WAS ALSO INTENDED, TO HAVE TEMPORARY POWERS, IN PROTECTING THE EACH PARTY'S POSITION, UNTIL THEIR MOTIONS, CAN BE HEARD BY THE COURT, AFTER SERVICE WAS MADE.  AND ON THE OTHER HAND, IF USED OUTSIDE OF AN ORDER, IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT WHAT WAS SAID, SHOULD NOT BE USED, LATER ON IN THE COURT. AND THEREBY PROTECTING THE ISSUER OF THAT STATEMENT.  

I LEAVE IT UP TO THE LEGAL MINDS (WHO ALSO READ MY BLOG), TO DETERMINE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE, GRANT DOW, ALSO MEANT, BY INSERTING THE PHRASE, "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", IN HIS ENDORSEMENT, PERTAINING TO MY CASE.

THE KIND OF ENDORSEMENT, THAT THE JUDGE HAD MADE, IS NOT THE USUAL PRACTICE OF THE COURT.  MOTIONS EITHER GETS DISMISSED, OR ABANDONED, IN THE COURT.  NOT LEFT IN LIMBO, LIKE THE ONE THAT THIS JUDGE, GRANT DOW, HAS MADE, HIS ENDORSEMENT ABOUT. ON THE ONE HAND, TO SERVE THE RESPONDENT AND ON THE OTHER HAND, TO REISSUE IT, OR TO HAVE IT TRANSFERRED, TO ANOTHER JUDICIAL REGION.

HE IS ALSO, IN MY OPINION, AND NOT UNLIKE, A LOT OF OTHER CANADIAN JUDGES, CORRUPT, IN HIS ACTIONS, CONCERNING, HOW HE CAN BEND THE LAW, OR MANIPULATE IT, TO SUIT HIS PURPOSE.  SO IF HE WANTS TO MAKE A DECISION, AGAINST SOMEONE, BASED ON HIS OWN PERSONAL BIAS, HE WILL DO JUST THAT.

 AND THAT IS ALSO WHAT HE HAS DONE, IN REGARDS TO MY CASE, THAT WAS BEFORE, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE.  HE REGARDED, MY URGENT MATTER, WITH LITTLE CONCERN AND ALSO CONTEMPT,  AS IF IT WAS ALSO A BOTHER TO HIM, PERSONALLY, IN EVEN RESPONDING TO IT.  

MOST JUDGES TRIES TO COVER UP THEIR PERSONAL BIASES, AND OFTEN SHROUDED IT, IN MUCH DETAILS, IN THEIR REASONS.  THIS JUDGE, DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO GIVE HIS REASONS, WHICH IS ALSO A LEGAL REQUIREMENT, UNDER THE LAW.  THE REASON WHY HE DID NOT GIVE ANY REASONS, I BELIEVED, IS THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT CAME OUT PLAINLY AND SAY IN HIS INDORSEMENT, THAT HE WAS DISMISSING, MY URGENT MOTION, IN WHICH CASE HE WAS ALSO MANDATED, TO GIVE HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO. HE SHROUDED HIS DECISION, IN CAREFULLY WORDED STATEMENTS, IN HIS INDORSEMENT, THAT HE ALSO MADE ON MARCH 27, 2024, WHERE I HAD SOUGHT AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUCTION, OR A MANDATORY ORDER, IN ORDER TO STOP, THE HARM FROM HAPPENING TO ME, WHICH WOULD ALSO FORCED ME TO BECOME HOMELESS, HAVING LOSS MY PRIVATE HOME AND THIS CORRUPT JUDGE, DID NOT THINK THAT SUCH A SITUATION, WOULD ALSO BE HARMFUL TO ME.  GETTING ANOTHER PRIVATE RESIDENCE, IS ALSO A TOP PRIORITY FOR ME, WHICH I AM ALSO WORKING TO OBTAIN, AT THIS TIME. BUT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE AND ITS COURT, COULD NOT HAVE CARED LESS, IF I HAD FROZEN TO DEATH, BEING PUT OUT ON THE STREET, BY THE SHELTER.  JUST BECAUSE I WAS SEEKING AN EXTENSION, TO STAY AT THE SHELTER, WHILE I LOOKED FOR A RESIDENTIAL HOME, OF MY OWN.  THE SHELTER IS ALSO MANDATED, NOT TO PUT PEOPLE OUT, ON THE STREET. BUT THIS ONE WANTED TO DO THE OPPOSITE AND PUTS THE BURDEN ON YOU, TO FIND YOUR OWN PLACE TO LIVE, OR ELSE BE PUT OUT, ON THE STREET. THIS JUDGE, GRANT DOW, DID NOT REGARD, THIS AS BEING HARMFUL TO ME, OR REQUIRING THE COURT, TO IMMEDIATELY, INTERVENED, IN THE SITUATION, THAT WOULD ALSO CLEARLY CAUSED ME HARM, IF CARRIED OUT, BY THE RESPONDENT.  

 I ALSO HAVE THE RESPONDENT'S AGENTS, THE STAFF AT THE SHELTER, TRYING TO GET ME TO GO AGAINST THE ORDER, OR ENDORSEMENT, THAT WAS MADE BY THE COURT, AS A MEANS OF CIRCUMVENTING, ANY HEARING, BY THE COURT, OF THE ISSUES, AS RELATED TO MY URGENT MOTION, THAT HAS ALSO BEEN SERVED UPON THE RESPONDENT, AS THE COURT, HAS ALSO INDICATED, THAT I DO.  THIS ACTION IS ALSO CRIMINAL ON THEIR PART, SINCE TELLING SOMEONE TO BREACH A COURT ORDER, EVEN IF IT IS AN ENDORSEMENT, BY SELF EVICTING THEMSELVES, OR BY DOING OTHER THINGS AGAINST THE ORDER, WOULD ALSO BE A CRIMINAL ACT. THE OFFENCE BEING, COUNSELLING TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE, UNDER SECTION 22(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. THE OFFENCE BEING MADE, AGAINST THE ORDER, SINCE IT DID NOT TELL ME TO SELF EVICT MYSELF, FROM THE SHELTER, BUT TO SERVE THE RESPONDENT, WHERE IT WAS ALSO INTENDED BY THE SERVICE, FOR THE COURT TO HEAR BOTH SIDES, AT A LATER DATE. 

ONE THING THAT WAS MADE, ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, WHEN MY CASE WAS BEFORE HIM RECENTLY, WAS THAT HE ENFORCES, IN THE COURTROOM, THAT THE LIVES OF BLACKS, DO NOT MATTER TO HIM, AS A JUDGE, PRESIDING OVER CASES, THAT ALSO REQUIRES, THAT HE NOT ONLY RESPECT PEOPLE'S, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BUT TO ALSO RESPECT, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AND NOT TO BRING, ILL REPUTE TO IT.  SINCE I BELIEVED, THAT HIS ACTIONS, WAS ALSO DIRECTED, IN TARGETING ME, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AS WELL.

 EVERY JUDGE, IS LEGALLY OBLIGATED, TO MAKE A DECISION, THAT IS JUST, OR AT LEAST ONE, THAT APPEARS TO BE JUST.  IGNORING, AN IMPENDING HARM, THAT THE PARTY, COULD HAVE ALSO SUFFERED, SHOWS A CORRUPT JUDGE.  I HAD TO MAKE DO, WITH THE ORDER, THAT HE HAD ALSO MADE, HAVING A GENERAL KNOWLEDGE, OF THE LAW, MYSELF.  HE WANTED ME, TO NAVIGATE MY WAY, AROUND HIS DECISION AND TO GLEAN SOME KIND OF BENEFIT, FROM IT.  HE DID NOT CAME STRAIGHT OUT AND GRANTED ME THE ORDER, THAT I HAD ALSO SOUGHT, BUT FOUND WAYS TO AVOID DOING SO, BY TELLING ME, THAT THE ORDER WAS BENG MADE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ALSO THAT THE OTHER PARTY, MUST BE FIRST SERVED, ON MY EX-PARTE MOTON. AND THEN TO ALSO HAVE IT TRANSFERRED, TO ANOTHER JUDICIAL REGION, TO BE DEALT WITH BY THE COURT, IN THAT REGION.

ONE OF THE DILEMA, THAT I AM ALSO FACING WITH HIS ENDORSEMENT, IS IF ANOTHER JUDGE HEARING THE MATTER, WOULD ALSO REGARD THE SITUATION AS A RES JUDICATA, SITUATION.  IT WOULD SEEM THAT THIS JUDGE,  ALSO LEFT THE SITUATION UNCLEAR, BY STATING THAT SERVICE SHOULD ALSO BE MADE UPON THE RESPONDENTS, WITH THE EX-PARTE MOTION.  THAT WOULD ALSO SUGGEST, THAT THE MOTION WOULD AND SHOULD ALSO CONTINUE, FOLLOWING SERVICE BEING MADE UPON THE RESPONDENT, AND NOT A MATTER THAT IS ALSO FINISHED IN THE COURT.  

A MOTION THAT IS USUALLY FINISHED IN THE COURT, WOULD ALSO INDICATE THIS FINALITY, WITH THE REASONS OF THE JUDGE, ALSO GIVEN IN THE ORDER, OR ENDORSEMENT.  AND ALSO WITH THE DISMISSAL, OF THE MOTION.  WHY WOULD I REISSUE A MOTION, IF I WAS ALSO DIRECTED, BY THE JUDGE, OR COURT, TO SERVE THE SAID MOTION, ON THE RESPONDENT?. AND WHAT ABOUT THE COURT FILE NUMBER, THAT WAS ALSO ATTACHED TO THE URGENT MOTION AND ALSO THE CLAIM FOR TORT, THAT ALSO GOES WITH THE MOTION?. AM I TO START ALL OF THIS OVER AGAIN, IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION, WHEN I HAD ALREADY STARTED THIS PROCESS BEFORE?. I WAS ALSO TOLD, THAT I NEEDED TO FILE A MOTION, TO HAVE THE PREVIOUS URGENT MOTION, TRANSFERRED TO THE DIFFERENT REGION, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE, IN THAT REGION, WHERE BOTH PARTIES ARE LOCATED. DO YOU NOT SEE HOW THIS JUDGE, GRANT DOW, HAS ALSO, COMPLICATED THE MATTER, REGARDING MY MATTER, BEFORE THE COURT, AS A SELF REPRESENTED, LITIGANT.  TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS, UNNECESSARY ACTIONS, JUST TO GET AN URGENT MOTION, TO BE HEARD BY THE COURT.