CANADA, PUTS BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, THROUGH TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT.

SHOULD CANADA'S ACTIONS, BE IGNORED, FOR CARRYING OUT TORTURE AGAINST BLOGGER?.  AND FOR BLOCKING EVERY EFFORT OF THIS BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, TO GET LEGAL PROTECTION, UNDER ITS OWN LAWS, AS WELL AS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAWS?.


LOUISE HORTON: LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD MEMBER, ACCUSED TENANT (AND THIS BLOGGER), OF "ABUSING THE PROCESS", ON TUESDAY JULY 26TH, AFTER THE TENANT TRIED TO GET A HEARING, AT THE L&T BOARD, OVER AN ILLEGAL EVICTION, BY HER LANDLORD, WITHOUT AN EVICTION ORDER, FROM THE L&T BOARD. HORTON, DISMISSED THE MATTER, WITHOUT HAVING A HEARING, LEAVING THE TENANT WITHOUT ANY PROTECTION, UNDER THE ACT.
(The tenant now has to file an application, with the Divisional Court, to have the matter addressed. The Div. Court, can either address the matter, directly, or send it back the L&T Board, to be addressed).





BLOGGER, VALERIE GUILLAUME, HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY EVICTED AND WITHOUT AN EVICTION ORDER, BEING ISSUED BY THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. THE BLOGGER'S LANDLORD, YINGGUO AI, HAS NEVER APPLIED TO THE BOARD, FOR AN ORDER, TO EVICT THE TENANT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HAS ALSO NEVER ISSUED AN EVICTION ORDER, AGAINST THE TENANT.


YET, THE TENANT AND ALSO BLOGGER, HAS HAD TO FACE INCREDILE HARDSHIP, FROM BEING FORCED OUT OF HER HOME, AS PART OF CANADA'S MKULTA AND OTHER FORMS OF PYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE, TARGETED AGAINST THIS BLOGGER.

THE TENANT'S LEGAL RIGHTS, ARE BEING ABUSED.

THE ACTIONS, OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, IN THIS CASE, HAS DIVERTED SO MUCH, FROM NORAL PRACTICE, IN REGARDS TO FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEDURE, INVOLVING THE TENANT, THAT MORE THAN ONE SECTIONS OF THE LAW, HAS BEEN VIOLATED. THOSE RIGHTS OF THE TENANT, UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, THOSE UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, AND EVEN THOSE UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE (FOR CORRUPTION, BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS) SHOULD ALSO APPLY HERE, AND IN THIS CASE. (AND AGAINST THOSE ADJUDICATORS INVOLVED).




1. WHY HAS THIS TENANT, BEEN DENIED, A HEARING AT THE BOARD?. THE LATEST EFFORT ON JULY 26TH, WHEN SHE WAS TOLD THAT SHE WAS "ABUSING THE PROCESS", BY FILING AN APPLICATION, TO DEAL WITH THE ILLEGAL EVICTION. THAT WAS CARRIED OUT AGAINST HER, BY THE LANDLORD (WHO ALSO CHANGED THE LOCKS ON THE DOOR, ILLEGALY, ON APRIL 1ST, WITHOUT AN ORDER FROM THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD), AND BY THE TORONTO FIRE SERVICES.




2. THE CLEAREST EVIDENCE, OF GOVERNMENT ABUSE, AS ALL EFFORTS BY THE BLOGGER/TENANT, TO GET ANY LEGAL REMEDY FOR HER SITUATUION, HAS ALSO BEEN BLOCKED, BY THOSE CANADIAN AUTHORITIES. BOTH WITHIN CANADA AND ALSO OUTSIDE OF THAT COUNTRY.




3. THE ILLEGAL EVICTION, OF THE TENANT/BLOGGER, WAS THE LATEST EFFORT MADE, BY CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, TO DESTABILIZED THE BLOGGER. AND TO CAUSE DETRIMENTAL HARM, TO THE BLOGGER, BY INFLICTING PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL SUFFERING, UPON THE BLOGGER.




4. THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE, TO SUGGEST, THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD AND BY MEMBER, LOUISE HORTON, ON JULY 26TH TO DENY THE TENANT A HEARING, WAS ALSO INTENDED, TO BLOCK THE TENANT FROM GETTING ANY FINANCIAL COMPENSATION, REGARDING THE ILLEGAL EVICTION. 


5. ONLY THE LANDLORD AND BOARD (AS WELL AS THE COURT), HAS THE LEGAL JURISDICTION TO EVICT A TENANT, IN ONTARIO. NOT THE FIRE SERVICES, NOR ANY LANDLORD. LEGALLY, THE TENANT/BLOGGER , IS ALSO STILL ENTITLED TO THE SAME PROTECTION, AS A TENANT, UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT. INCLUDING THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BE HOUSED, BY THE LANDLORD, UNTIL SUCH A TIME, WHEN AN EVICTION ORDER, IS ISSUED AGAINST THE TENANT.




6. CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO SUCH ORDER, BY THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, AGAINST THE TENANT. IN THE EYES OF THE BOARD, THE EVICTION ORDER IS NOT NECESSARY, SINCE IT HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED, THE ILLEGAL EVICTION OF THE TENANT, BY THE LANDLORD.  AND THAT CONTRARY TO THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, THE TENANT'S EFFORTS TO GET REHOUSED, BY THE LANDLORD, OR TO GET ANY COMPENSATION, FOR HIS ACTIONS AGAINST HER, HAS ALSO BEEN
DENIED BY THE BOARD. AND IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT, OF THE TENANT/BLOGGER.




7. THE TENANT ALSO, HAS NEVER RECOVERED, FROM THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, ANY EXPENSES THAT SHE HAS PAID OUT, AS A RESULT OF THE LANDLORD AND/OR FIRE SERVICES ACTIONS, REGARDING THE ILLEGAL EVICTION.




8. BECAUSE THE TENANT'S RENTAL UNIT, WAS DEEMED TO BE UNSAFE, BY THE FIRE SERVICES AND ALSO WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR AND OR RENOVATIONS, TO BRING IT UP TO FIRE CODE STANDARDS, THE TENANT IS ALSO ENTITLED TO RECOVER COMPENSATIONS, UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, SECTIONS 37(1), 48-57, INCLUDING 3 MONTHS RENT, UNDER EACH CATEGORY OF THE ACT, WHERE THE TENANT'S RENTAL UNIT WAS CONFISCATED BY THE LANDLORD, (REGARDLESS OF HIS REASONS ON HIS PART), BUT UNDER THE ACT, FOR RENOVATIONS AND OR REPAIRS.


Below are portion of the Residential Tenancies Act 2006, as well as the new law, The Rental Fairness Act, both of which has been ignored, in recognizing the rights of this particular tenant, Valerie Guillaume. And this should be viewed as part of the ongoing AND discriminatory practice against this individual, by the Canadian government, in its effort to destabilized this person.

Residential Tenancies Act
Part V

                         Security of Tenure and Termination of Tenancies


Security of Tenure
Termination only in accordance with the Act
37.(1) A tenancy may be terminated only in accordance with this Act. 2006, c.17, s. 37(1)

(In other words, where there was no order issued by the Board, the tenancy is still in effect).
Termination by notice

(2) If a notice of termination is given in accordance with this Act and the tenant vacates the rental unit in accordance with the notice, the tenancy is terminated on the termination date set out in the notice. 2006, c. 17, s. 37 (2).
Restriction on recovery of possession

39. A landlord shall not recover possession of a rental unit subject to a tenancy unless,

(a) the tenant has vacated or abandoned the unit; or

(b) an order of the Board evicting the tenant has authorized the possession.

2006, c. 17, s. 39.

(In other words, where there was no order issued by the Board, the tenancy is still in effect). As in my case, currently. Yet this has also been ignored, by the Board.
Notice of Termination - General
Notice of termination

43. (1) Where this Act permits a landlord or tenant to give a notice of termination, the notice shall be in a form approved by the Board and shall,

(a) identify the rental unit for which the notice is given;

(b) state the date on which the tenancy is to terminate; and

(c) be signed by the person giving the notice, or the person’s agent.

2006, c. 17, s. 43 (1).
Same

(2) If the notice is given by a landlord, it shall also set out the reasons and details respecting the termination and inform the tenant that,

(a) if the tenant vacates the rental unit in accordance with the notice, the tenancy terminates on the date set out in clause (1) (b);

(b) if the tenant does not vacate the rental unit, the landlord may apply to the Board for an order terminating the tenancy and evicting the tenant; and

(c) if the landlord applies for an order, the tenant is entitled to dispute the application.

2006, c. 17, s. 43 (2).
Notice, demolition, conversion or repairs

50. (1) A landlord may give notice of termination of a tenancy if the landlord requires possession of the rental unit in order to,

(a) demolish it;

(b) convert it to use for a purpose other than residential premises; or

(c) do repairs or renovations to it that are so extensive that they require a building permit and vacant possession of the rental unit.

2006, c. 17, s. 50 (1). Same

(2) The date for termination specified in the notice shall be at least 120 days after the notice is given and shall be the day a period of the tenancy ends or, where the tenancy is for a fixed term, the end of the term. 2006, c. 17, s. 50 (2).

Same

(3) A notice under clause (1) (c) shall inform the tenant that if he or she wishes to exercise the right of first refusal under section 53 to occupy the premises after the repairs or renovations, he or she must give the landlord notice of that fact in accordance with subsection 53 (2) before vacating the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 50 (3).
Compensation, demolition or conversion

52. A landlord shall compensate a tenant in an amount equal to three months rent or offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant if,

(a) the tenant receives notice of termination of the tenancy for the purposes of demolition or conversion to non-residential use;

(b) the residential complex in which the rental unit is located contains at least five residential units; and

(c) in the case of a demolition, it was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of any other Act.

2006, c. 17, s. 52.

Tenant's right of first refusal, repair or renovation

53. (1) A tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy for the purpose of repairs or renovations may, in accordance with this section, have a right of first refusal to occupy the rental unit as a tenant when the repairs or renovations are completed. 2006, c. 17, s. 53 (1).

Tenant's right of first refusal, repair or renovation


53. (1) A tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy for the purpose of repairs or renovations may, in accordance with this section, have a right of first refusal to occupy the rental unit as a tenant when the repairs or renovations are completed. 2006, c. 17, s. 53 (1).


Tenant's right to compensation, repair or renovation

54. (1) A landlord shall compensate a tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy under section 50 for the purpose of repairs or renovations in an amount equal to three months rent or shall offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant if,

(a) the tenant does not give the landlord notice under subsection 53 (2) with respect to the rental unit;

(b) the residential complex in which the rental unit is located contains at least five residential units; and

(c) the repair or renovation was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of this or any other Act.

2006, c. 17, s. 54 (1).

 Same

(2) A landlord shall compensate a tenant who receives notice of termination of a tenancy under section 50 for the purpose of repairs or renovations in an amount equal to the rent for the lesser of three months and the period the unit is under repair or renovation if,

(a) the tenant gives the landlord notice under subsection 53 (2) with respect to the rental unit;

(b) the residential complex in which the rental unit is located contains at least five residential units; and

(c) the repair or renovation was not ordered to be carried out under the authority of this or any other Act.

2006, c. 17, s. 54 (2).

 Tenant's right to compensation, severance

55. A landlord of a residential complex that is created as a result of a severance shall compensate a tenant of a rental unit in that complex in an amount equal to three months rent or offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant if,

(a) before the severance, the residential complex from which the new residential complex was created had at least five residential units;

(b) the new residential complex has fewer than five residential units; and

(c) the landlord gives the tenant a notice of termination under section 50 less than two years after the date of the severance.

2006, c. 17, s.55.

 Security of tenure, severance, subdivision

56. Where a rental unit becomes separately conveyable property due to a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act or a plan of subdivision under section 51 of that Act, a landlord may not give a notice under section 48 or 49 to a person who was a tenant of the rental unit at the time of the consent or approval. 2006, c. 17, s. 56.

Former tenant's application where notice given in bad faith:
(Note: You have a right as a former tenant, who has been illegally evicted, as I have been, to apply to the board for a hearing and to seek a redress, for this illegal action that was carried out against you. Only in my case, the L&T Board, has regarded it as an "abuse of process", as quoted by the Member, Louise Horton, to me on July 26th, at a hearing, in regards to the said matter. She, also, ceremoniously, dismissed the matter. So I was left without my rental accommodation, and also without any compensation, for the wrong done to me). In the view of the L&T Board, section 57 (see below) did not apply to me, as a tenant.

57. (1) The Board may make an order described in subsection (3) if, on application by a former tenant of a rental unit, the Board determines that,

(a) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 48 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and no person referred to in clause 48 (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit;

(b) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 49 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and no person referred to in clause 49 (1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) or 49 (2) (a), (b), (c) or (d) occupied the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit; or

(c) the landlord gave a notice of termination under section 50 in bad faith, the former tenant vacated the rental unit as a result of the notice or as a result of an application to or order made by the Board based on the notice, and the landlord did not demolish, convert or repair or renovate the rental unit within a reasonable time after the former tenant vacated the rental unit.

2006, c. 17, s. 57 (1).
Time limitation

(2) No application may be made under subsection (1) more than one year after the former tenant vacated the rental unit. 2006, c. 17, s. 57 (2).
 Orders
(3) The orders referred to in subsection (1) are the following:

1. An order that the landlord pay a specified sum to the former tenant for,

i.
all or any portion of any increased rent that the former tenant has

incurred or will incur for a one-year period after vacating the rental unit, and

ii. reasonable out-of-pocket moving, storage and other like expenses that the former tenant has incurred or will incur.

2. An order for an abatement of rent.

3. An order that the landlord pay to the Board an administrative fine not exceeding the greater of $10,000 and the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

4. Any other order that the Board considers appropriate.

2006, c. 17, s. 57 (3).  (Note: the Landlord and Tenant Board, did not apply any of these sections, of the Residential Tenancies Act, in my case. What it has done is to dismiss my T2 application and also regarded it as "an abuse of process", on my part (to  reclaim my legal rights under the law). And by doing so has also accomplished two things. 1. To ensure that I never get back into my rental unit. (which was also the aim of the government officials, who started this whole process, against me, back in March 2017). 2. To ensure that I do not get the same treatment as other tenants, in the same situation, including, no financial compensation, to me. Either in recovering the financial loss, I have experienced, as a result of the illegal eviction, by the landlord and the T.O. Fire Services, or in receiving any damages awarded to me, as a result of the illegal actions taken against me, by those mentioned. Either way, it has achieved its goal, in destabilizing me by forcing me out of my home and also in causing me unnecessary hardship and suffering, through its corruption. And also the personal corruption, of those other Canadian government officials, who are also involved.


As A Follow Up, To The Matter, Mentioned Above:  On Friday, July 29th, I held a protest at the Landlord and Tenant Building, (which also housed the Family Court and other government offices). The public response was also encouraging, including, some members of the public, advising me to also get a petition signed, to removed the corrupt L&T Board Members, such as Louise Horton, Sylvia Watson and the Vice Chair, Egya Sangmuah, from their current positions, with the L&T Board. There will be further protests at the L&T Board, until I either get a hearing, or the Board members mentioned, are removed. There will also be a petition for the public to sign, to be sent to the Premiere of Ontario, and the Society of Adjudicators and Regulators, to get those persons removed, from their current positions. The unbelievable thing about it all, is that those same persons all have a legal background and knows about the law, when it comes to a fair process, involving a hearing. That they could act so corruptly, in my case, is beyond what any rational mind can comprehend, on the matter, beyond the fact that they should also face the worst penalty and consequences for their actions.

 

                           

LOUISE HORTON AND THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, HAS DENIED ME A HEARING...

I was denied a hearing in order to block me from getting any compensation, by the Landlord and Tenant Board. The conspiracy by the Canadian government, to destroy me and to prevent me from being compensated for wrongs done to me. I want to hear from the UN about it and the IACHR. As well, as I want an update from the International Criminal Court, about the matter before that court, in regards to those Canadian government officials, that I have charged before that court.

CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT, RULED ON BESTIALITY: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, DID NOT REGARD MAN, WHO COMMITTED BESTIALITY, AS A CRIME.

CANADIAN JUDGES, SHOULD JOIN, THE WALK OF SHAME.

CANADIAN LAW HAS FAILED TO PROTECT ANIMALS,WHO HAVE SUFFERED BESTIALITY, FROM HUMANS. IN A RECENT SUPREME COURT OF CANADA RULING, BACK IN 2016,  THE S.C.C.  HAS NARROWED THE SCOPE OF THE LAW,
CONCERNING ZOOPHILLIA AND BESTIALITY. IT REFUSED TO CHANGED THE OUTDATED LAW, TO INCLUDE OTHER ACTS, OTHER THAN FULL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH AN ANIMAL. ORAL SEX IS OKAY WITH AN ANIMAL, THE S.C.C. SAYS. ANIMALS ARE ALSO IN NEED OF PROTECTION TOO, AGAINST SEXUAL PREDATORS, UNDER THE LAW.




BLAME THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGE, JUSTICE THOMAS CROMWELL, FOR UPHELDING, THE CRUEL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, IN THIS CASE FOR BESTIALITY, AFTER NOT RECOGNIZING, THAT FORCING AN ANIMAL TO ENGAGE, IN ANY KIND OF SEXUAL CONDUCT, IS A CRIME AGAINST THAT ANIMAL. WHO CANNOT GIVE ITS CONSENT AND ARE IN FACT ABUSED BY ITS OWNER, AND BY OTHERS PERPETRATING THOSE ACTS.

Former Supreme Court of Canada Judge, Thomas Cromwell,
now a lawyer again, with BLG, Bordon, Ladner and Gervais
law firm, made a legal blunder, in not recognizing the scope of
zoophillia, and specifically, bestiality, in a ruling last year, when he
ruled that oral sex with a dog (or any animal for that matter), was
not bestiality.

B.C. Supreme Court Judge, Arne Silverman, gave a
suspended sentence, to Brian Anthony Cutteridge,
  a notorious zoophilic monster, of having sex with his dogs.
The man had taken videos of himself, having sex with his dogs.
He got no jail time, from Judge Silverman.

  (Picture is Missing) Calgary, Ablerta,

Judge Gordon Wong, acquitted a man of the charge of bestiality. The man was accused of having sex, as well as forcing his stepson to have sex with animals. Including, a calf and a bull. The man had sex with the bull and then forced his stepson to have oral sex with a calf. The Canadian judge, acquitted the man at trial, to the outrage of the family and the public.

CROMWELL'S RULING THAT FORCING A DOG TO ENGAGE IN A SEXUAL ACT IN CANADA, IS NOT BESTIALITY, IF IT DOES NOT INCLUDE PENETRATION. AND YOU WONDER WHY HE "CHOSE" EARLY RETIREMENT FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CROMWELL IS NOW BACK TO BEING A REGULAR LAWYER, (SO THE EXCUSE OF AN EARLY RESIGNATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT WAS A FARCE. A LANGUAGE USED BY THOSE IN THE PUBLIC, WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THEIR DISMISSAL IS ALSO IMMINENT.

Perhaps he has performed bestiality on his own dog and so does not regard it as a crime and a cruel act against the poor and defenseless animal. This would also de sensitized him, further, on making any ruling on that subject, as he later did. 

Cromwell' infamous words in ruling on the case, "It is not court to expand the criminal liability for this (ancient) offence". His full statement in his ruling on bestiality, Cromwell said, "The term bestiality has a well established legal meaning and refers to sexual intercourse between a human and an animal". " Penetration has always been an essential element of bestiality", says the former Supreme Court of Canada judge. And with that decision the S.C.C. upheld the acquittal, of the man (who cannot be identified, in order to protect his stepdaughters) convicted and then acquitted, of the bestiality charge against his dogs.

CROMWELL WAS HARPER'S CHOICE, TO BE APPOINTED TO THE SURPREME COURT AND THE REST OF THE PROTOCOL FOLLOWED SMOOTHLY, AFTER THAT. AND JUST AS THE FORMER P.M. WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN HAVING CROMWELL APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL, SO TOO THE NEW P.M. JUSTIN TRUDEAU WAS ALSO INSTRUMENTAL, IN BRINGING ABOUT HIS EARLY RETIRMENT AND OR RESIGNATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT. CROMWELL SERVED 8 YEAR ON THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.

TRUDEAU'S COMMONS SENSE APPROACHED HAS CONTINUED, WHEN LAST AUGUST HE PROPOSED SOME NEW CHANGES TO CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT.  The new process will permit any lawyer or judge who fits a specified criteria to apply for a seat on the Supreme Court of Canada, through the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs.

The more common sense approach by Supreme Court Judge Rosalie Abella ,showed a humane answer to the question of bestiality, as she took a different view from her peers. "“I do not see the absence of a requirement of penetration as broadening the scope of bestiality,” she wrote in her dissenting opinion. “I see it more as a reflection of Parliament’s common sense assumption that, since penetration is physically impossible with most animals and for half the population, requiring it as an element of the offence eliminates from censure most physically exploitative conduct with animals.”

Zoophilia is the more legal term and covers a much broader spectrum concerning humans engaging in sexual acts with animal and includes among those acts, bestiality. Unfortunately, in Canada oral sex with an animal in not considered as bestiality, or as a crime for that matter. Since the SCC made that absolutely clear in its ruling. Satanists and pedophiles are rampant in the courts, social agencies.  And they are also protected by their fraternity as freemasons, which most of them are. All that we can do is to exposed the ones that are caught making decisions that lead us to believe that they are not acting on behalf of the public in regards to their decisions, but "something else". Certainly human rights was far from this judge's mind as well as animal cruelty. He was as unapologetic about his decision, as were all of the other 7 Supreme Court judges who also agreed with him, over what is bestiality, and what is not.

With Justice Rosalie Abella, dissenting on the matter. I wonder if they also owned animal, or would like their animals to be abused in that way?

Former judge, Thomas Cromwell, now a
practicing lawyer. Most lawyers aspire to be
on the Supreme Court. He's had his tenure and now
he is back to being a lawyer, again. You'd think that
he would have been more wise in his decisions,
and to stick around longer. I can't help thinking that
some of his decisions, as a former Supreme Court
judge, also provided his hasty retreat, from Canada's
highest court.

THE UNFORGIVABLE BLUNDER, OF THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGE, MAY HAVE LED TO HIS EARLY RESIGNATION, FROM CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT. TRUDEAU REPLACED HIM LAST YEAR AND NO DOUBT IT MAY HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH SOME OF HIS EARLIER CONTROVERSIAL RULINGS. THE ONE THAT STANDS OUT THE MOST HERE, IS CROMWELL'S ACCENTING TO KEEPING THE BEASTIALITY LAWS, FROM INCLUDING ORAL SEX WITH AN ANIMAL, ALONG WITH PENETRATION.  CROMWELL RULED IN 2016, THAT A B.C. MAN DID NOT COMMIT BEASTIALITY UPON HIS DOG, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PENETRATION AND ONLY ORAL SEX. HE ALSO FORCED THE DOG TO PERFORM A SEXUAL ACT UPON A SIXTEEN YEAR OLD AND THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE, also JUDGED WRONG AND DID NOT SEE IT AS AN ABOMINABLE ACT, PERFOMED ON THE ANIMAL.

NO WONDER THAT, THE FORMER SUPREME COURT JUDGE, IS BACK TO BEING A LAWYER AGAIN, AFTER HIS "EARLY RETIREMENT" I.E EXIT FROM THE SUPREME COURT, BY THE NEW P. M. JUSTIN TRUDEAU. (at least he can tell his new clients that he was a former judge on the supreme court of Canada, but he will also left out the part on some of his more controversial rulings, that got him to make an earlier exist, than the norm).

BLAME THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGE, JUSTICE THOMAS CROMWELL, FOR UPHELDING, THE CRUEL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, IN THIS CASE FOR BESTIALITY.  AFTER NOT RECOGNIZING, THAT FORCING AN ANIMAL TO ENGAGE, IN ANY KIND OF SEXUAL CONDUCT, IS A CRIME AGAINST THAT ANIMAL. WHO CANNOT GIVE ITS CONSENT AND ARE IN FACT ABUSED BY ITS OWNER.

The Supreme Court of Canada Judges.
This should have been an outdated picture, but it is not.
What the f--k are they smiling about?

Take a look at this picture and tell me if there isn't something (fundamentally) wrong with it and also with the legal process in Canada?.

Don't you think that it is time the Supreme Court of Canada changed it's own image from that

of  being snow white and add some diversity to its judges, who are all white? Not one black, or any other minority are represented on Canada's highest court. And if you think that those white judges on the supreme court of Canada, are any different from those at the trial level, you are sadly mistaken. They ruled to uphold the status quo and that is why there are no real changes to any kind of equality, or to any real progress in this country.