JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO AND CONCERNS ABOUT HIS CONDUCT.

ALERT!!! WHY IS JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY, TORONTO DIVISIONAL COURT, CONDUCTING A HEARING, ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2021, FAMILY DAY HOLIDAY, WHEN THE COURTS ARE CLOSED?

DO YOU SEE THE CORRUPTION IN THIS CASE?

(I have contacted the Divisional Court, just to confirm whether the hearing, that was scheduled for February 15, 2021, would be adjourned, because it is a holiday, in Canada and I was told by Rina Badwal, (through email), that it will still go ahead. Why is Judge Michael Penny, conducting a hearing, on a Statutory Holiday?. He could not wait, one more day?. Courts are reopened on Tuesday, February 16th. (The Superior Court of Justice, is opened on February 15th, but not to deal with certain matters). He also made it preemptory, on the Appellant to attend the hearing and claimed, that it will not be adjourned, for any reason.  All of the local media, have also reported that the courts are closed, on February 15, 2021, on Family Day.

I was being professional and nice, in my comments about the judge below, But let's face it, he has acted corruptly. And he may continue to do so, if he acts in a reprisal manner, against me at the hearing, for exposing his actions and exercising my right, to freedom of speech. In this case it is more than that to me, it is ALSO about making the Canadian courts, as transparent, as it should be. Let Canadians and the rest of the world, see how it operates. (If we can't go to the court, to get our rights protected, then what kind of society, do we live in?). There is the Judicial Council and the Human Rights Commission, that are available to me, to have my complaints investigated, to start with. And I hope my matter, also go ahead with the other matter, that is also up for a hearing, on the same day. They were supposedly scheduled together, on February 1st, according to the other judge, in her endorsement, on February 2nd. Why does the court and this judge, only want to go ahead, with one of those cases, and to leave out the other?. Judge Michael Penny, is seized of both cases, so why is he now only proceeding with one? 

JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, IS BOUND BY LAW, TO CONDUCT A HEARING, IN THE MANNER, IN WHICH THE LAW, PROVIDED HIM TO DO. HOWEVER, THERE ARE CONCERNS, THAT ARE NOW RAISED, IN REGARDS TO HIS CONDUCT, AT THE HEARING, ON FEBRUARY 11, 2021.

I WILL PRESENT THOSE CONCERNS, AND LET THE PUBLIC AND THOSE OTHERS, OF THE CANADIAN JUDICIARY, VIEW THEM AND MAKE THEIR OWN JUDGMENT, ABOUT HIS CONDUCT.

NOTE:  ALTHOUGH THE HEARING, DID NOT PROCEED, BECAUSE OF THE MALFUNCTIONING, OF THE DEVICE, THAT ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE, WAS USING AT THE TIME, THE JUDGE WAS IN FACT, PRESIDING OVER THE MATTER AND HAD SAID AND DONE SOME THINGS, THAT ARE QUESTIONABLE.

1. JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, WAS PREPARED TO ALLOW THE DEFENDANT, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING, AS A WITNESS, WITHOUT PROVIDING A SWORN STATEMENT, OR AFFIDAVIT.

THE DEFENDANT, ANGELA STERLING, WAS ON THE TELEPHONE, THE JUDGE MENTIONED, AT THE HEARING AND "WAS PREPARED TO GO".  WE MUST TAKE THIS TO MEAN, THAT SHE WAS PREPARED, TO ACT AS A WITNESS AND TO GIVE EVIDENCE, WITHOUT SWEARING, THAT EVIDENCE FIRST, IN AN AFFIDAVIT  AND TO SERVE IT ON BOTH THE APPELLANT AND THE COURT, AS IS THE PROCEDURE OF THE COURT.

2. THE JUDGE WAS UNWILLING, TO ADJOURNED THE MATTER, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A SITUATION, THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE APPELLANT'S ABILITY TO CONTROL. WHEN HER DEVICE COULD NOT WORK, SHE ASKED SOMEONE AND A TOTAL STRANGER, TO USE THEIR TELEPHONE, TO CONTINUE WITH THE HEARING, BUT THE PERSON WANTED THEIR DEVICE BACK, SO SHE COULD NOT CONTINUE, WITH THE HEARING. SHE THEN ASKED THE JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY, TO ADJOURNED THE MATTER, FOR A FEW DAYS SO THAT SHE COULD GET A DEVICE, THAT WOULD WORK PROPERLY. JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, WAS OBVIOUSLY, UNWILLING TO DO SO, BY HIS DEMEANOR AND HIS WORDS. 

3. HE THEN ASKED THE LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM, TO COMMENT ON THAT ISSUE, (STANDARD PROCEDURE) AND SHE THEN RAISED CONCERNS, ABOUT THE URGENCY OF HER MOTION, TO DISMISS MY APPEAL AND TO LIFT THE STAY, WHICH WOULD HAVE CAUSED THE APPELLANT, TO BE EVICTED IMMEDIATELY, AND BASED ON JUST THE ALLEGATIONS, OF A THIRD PARTY (NOT THE DEFENDANT), BUT THE DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, WHO WAS THE ONLY DEPONENT, TO THE MOTION.

4. THAT THE JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, HAVE ALLOWED THE COUNSEL, OF THE DEFENDANT, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, A PARALEGAL, TO PARTICIPATE AT THE HEARING, ON FEBRUARY 11, 2021, ON BEHALF OF HER CLIENT, THE DEFENDANT. AS SHE WAS SHOWN, TO BE AT THE HEARING, THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY VIDEO, AND SHE WAS SHOWN TO BE IN THE QUEUE, ALONG WITH THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS, THE APPELLANT AND THE DEFENDANT. 

5. THAT THE PARALEGAL, SHELLYANN PEREIRA, AS THE CURRENT COUNSEL, FOR THE  DEFENDANT, ANGELA STERLING, WAS ALSO THE ONLY DEPONENT, IN HER AFFIDAVIT, TO THE MOTION. AND THAT THE JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY, WAS PREPARED TO HAVE HER PARTICIPATE AS A WITNESS, AND TO GIVE EVIDENCE, AS THE DEPONENT IN HER AFFIDAVIT, THAT IS NOT ALLOWED, UNDER THE LAW.  SINCE BEING A COUNSEL, FOR THE DEFENDANT, WOULD HAVE CAUSED, A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS, AS THE DEPONENT BEING BOTH THE COUNSEL AND THE WITNESS, AT THE HEARING.

THE CONCERNS RAISED, IS THAT JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, MAY NOT ALLOW THIS ISSUE, TO BE RAISED, AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE, OF THE HEARING THAT IS SCHEDULED, TO BE HEARD ON FEBRUARY 15TH AT 10.A.M. AND MAY ALLOW THE HEARING TO GO AHEAD, WITHOUT ADDRESSING, THAT VERY IMPORTANT, PRELIMINARY ISSUE FIRST. THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED, THAT HE WILL NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE, OF THE HEARING.

6. THE CONCERNS, OVER THE PRESUMPTION OF BIAS, BY THE JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, AT THE HEARING. WHERE NO MENTION WAS MADE, OF THE OTHER MATTER, THAT WAS ALSO SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD, REGARDING THE APPELLANT'S MOTION, FOR A CONTEMPT ORDER, AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, IN GOING AGAINST THE ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED, BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT, ON JANUARY 4, 2021, REGARDING THE STAY, AND TO CHANGE THE LOCK ON THE DOOR, WITHOUT A SHERIFF, ON JANUARY 18TH. ON FEBRUARY 1ST. AN ORDER WAS MADE BY ANOTHER JUDGE, FOR HER TO PROVIDE THE APPELLANT, WITH THE REPLACEMENT KEYS, BUT THE MOTION FOR A CONTEMPT OF COURT, BY THE DEFENDANT, WAS NOT ON THE DOCKET, AS IT WAS ALSO SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD, ON FEBRUARY 11TH AND JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, DID NOT ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE, AT THE HEARING.

7 SERIOUS CONCERNS, ABOUT WHETHER, JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, WILL ALLOW THE PRELIMINARY ISSUES TO BE RAISED, PRIOR TO THE HEARING, BEING COMMENCED, OR TO GO AHEAD WITH THE HEARING, WITHOUT ALLOWING THOSE PRELIMINARY ISSUES, TO BE RAISED, AT THE HEARING, ON FEBRUARY 15TH. AS A JUDGE, HE IS BOUND BY THE LAW, TO ALLOW THOSE PRELIMINARY ISSUES TO BE RAISED, BEFORE COMMENCING THE HEARING.

8. NOTHING IN JUDGE, MICHAEL PENNY'S DEMEANOR, OR ACTION, ON FEBRUARY 11TH, WOULD SUGGEST THAT, HE WOULD ALLOW THE APPELLANT, TO RAISE ANY PRELIMINARY ISSUES, AT THE HEARING. WHICH WOULD DISMISS THE MOTION.

9. PRELIMINARY ISSUES, ARISING FROM THE (a) CONFLICT OF INTEREST, OF THE DEPONENT, AND COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT.

10. AND THE (b) HEARSAY EVIDENCE, IN HER AFFIDAVIT, (NOT BEING A DIRECT WITNESS, TO WHAT SHE HAS SWORN, IN HER AFFIDAVIT, BUT RELYING ON THE STATEMENTS OF HER CLIENT, THE DEFENDANT).

11.AND(c) MATTERS THAT ARE NOT, BEFORE THE COURT, IN HER AFFIDAVIT, BUT WHICH SHE INTENDED, FOR THE COURT TO ADDRESS, IN HER AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE. OR (d) REGARDING THE OPINIONS, STATED IN HER AFFIDAVIT,THAT ARE HER OWN, AND RELYING ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE, IN HER AFFIDAVIT, AS THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT. (e) THE INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, PRESENTED, AT THE HEARING.

12. CONCERNS THAT JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, WILL CONTINUE TO ALLOW, THE DEFENDANT, TO PARTICIPATE, AT THE HEARING, ON FEBRUARY 15TH, WITHOUT GIVING A SWORN STATEMENT, IN AN AFFIDAVIT, TO THE COURT. THAT MUST BE FIRST SERVED ON THE APPELLANT AND THEN FILED WITH THE COURT, AS PART OF ITS RECORD. CONCERNS, THAT THE JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, WILL ALLOW THE DEFENDANT, TO PARTICIPATE AT THE HEARING, BY TELEPHONE, AS HE HAS DONE PREVIOUSLY, ON FEBRUARY 11TH, AND TO ACT AS A WITNESS, IN A COURT OF LAW, WITHOUT SWEARING THE TRUTH, OF HER STATEMENTS, BEFOREHAND AND FOR THIS TO BE ACCEPTED, AS EVIDENCE, AT THE HEARING. 

13. JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IS BOUND BY LAW, TO ACT FAIR AND JUST AND WITHOUT BIAS, OR THE PRESUMPTION OF BIAS, IN THE HEARING. WHICH MEANS THAT HE MUST ADDRESSED THE ISSUES, OR CONCERNS THAT ARE RAISED, AT THE HEARING, INCLUDING, AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE, OR PRIOR TO THE HEARING, REGARDING THE CASE. ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, MUST BE HEARD, BY THE JUDGE. AND ALSO ADDRESSED, AT THE HEARING. AND IT IS THEN RECORDED, BY THE COURT.

14. INCLUDING, THE INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, PROVIDED AT THE HEARING, OR TO THE COURT, WHETHER REGARDING, THE HEARING ITSELF, OR THE MATERIALS FILED, OR REGARDING THE PROCEDURE, IN REGARDS TO OBTAINING THAT EVIDENCE, SUCH AS WHETHER A WITNESS, WHO HAVE NOT PROVIDED, A SWORN STATEMENT (AFFIDAVIT) AND IS ALLOWED TO PROCEED, OR NOT. 

THESE CONCERNS ARE RAISED, BECAUSE JUDGE MICHAEL PENNY, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO, MAY NOT HAVE FOLLOWED, THE PROCEDURES OF THE COURT, SET FORTH IN THE LAW, IN REGARDS TO THE HEARING ON FEBRUARY 11TH, CONCERNING THE WITNESSES, AT THE HEARING. THAT IS, THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS PREPARED TO GIVE EVIDENCE, WITHOUT SWEARING IT FIRST, WHO WAS ON THE TELEPHONE AND AS THE JUDGE MENTIONED, AT THE HEARING, "WAS PREPARED TO GO". THAT IS, SHE WAS PREPARED, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING, AS A WITNESS AND JUST BY STATING HER VIEWS, OR COMMENTS, WITHOUT MAKING, A SWORN STATEMENT FIRST. OR THE OTHER WITNESS, WHO IS A PARALEGAL AND THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT, CURRENTLY, IN HER OTHER MATTERS AT THE BOARD, WHO HAVE SWORN AN AFFIDAVIT, ON BEHALF OF HER CLIENT, THE DEFENDANT, WHICH RAISES THE ISSUE OF A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS, IN THE PROCEEDING.