Wednesday, March 10, 2021

URGENT!. COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, TANASHA ADAMS, SANDRA THEROULDE, AND HAS BLOCKED MY URGENT MOTION, FROM GOING BEFORE THE PANELOFJUDGES. AND OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, REGARDING MY CASE.

   

THE OPEN CRIMES, THAT ARE BEING COMMITTED, AGAINST ME, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, BY THE JUDICIAL STAFF AND THE COURT ITSELF. 

THE CONSPIRACY, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, TO FORCE ME OUT OF MY HOME, WHILE MY CASE, IS STILL BEFORE, THE COURT OF APPEAL.

SINCE LAST WEEK, SANDRA THEROULDE,THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND THE JUDICIAL STAFF, AT THE COURT OF APPEAL, HAS REFUSED TO BRING MY URGENT MOTION, BEFORE THE PANEL OF JUDGES.

* NO RESPONSE, FROM THE  REGISTRAR,TO LOOK INTO THE MATTER.

* the court also refused to provide me with the information, to contact the Director, who is over the registrar and the deputy registrar.

* ONE WEEK LATER, AND THE MOTION, IS STILL BEING BLOCKED, BY THE COA, STAFF. 

THE CONSPIRATORS, WHO HAVE WORKED TO BLOCKED ME, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO: The Registrar of the COA, Daniel Marentic, Deputy Registrar, Warren Robertson, Sandra Theroulde, Tanasha Adams, Debbie Dykstra, Registrar, Enforcement and others.

THE DELAY HAS CAUSED ME HARM, AS IT WAS ALSO INTENDED, TO CAUSE ME HARM, BY CAUSING ME TO BE EVICTED. THE COURT STAFF, CONTINUES TO BLOCK, MY URGENT MOTION, FROM GOING BEFORE THE PANEL. AT LEAST IT WAS AN URGENT MOTION, WHEN IT WAS PROVIDED, TO THE COURT LAST WEEK.  COA STILL REFUSED TO FILE MY STAY MOTION, AT THE COURT, WHILE I AM STILL WAITING, FOR MY OTHER MOTION, FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL, TO BE HEARD BY THE COURT.

IN THE MEAN TIME, THEY ARE ALSO PROCEEDING, WITH THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION, BEFORE THE COURT, THAT THE LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM, HAS FILED WITH THE COURT,TO HAVE MY CASE STOPPED, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.

BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS TO BLOCK MY MOTION BEFORE THEPANEL, CONCERNING THE STAY, THEY HAVE ALSO ALLOWED THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, TO CARRY OUT THE EVICTION THIS MORNING, WHILE STILL BLOCKING ME, FROM HAVING MY MOTION HEARD BEFORE THE PANEL, IN THE COA.


Friday, March 5, 2021

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, SANDRA THEROULDE, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ONCE AGAIN, HAS BLOCKED MY URGENT MONTION, FROM GOING BEFORE THE COURT, TODAY, MARCH 5TH.

SANDRA THEROULDE, TO BE CHARGED, IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, AMONG OTHER CANADIAN, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, FOR  CARRYING CRIMES, AGAINST ME, UNDER THE ROME STATUTE.

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO:  SANDRA THEROULDE, DEPUTY REGISTRAR'S ACTIONS, TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, IN REGARDS TO MY CASE, BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL. 

MY URGENT MOTION FOR A STAY, THAT WAS FILED ON MARCH 5TH, BEFORE THE PANEL OF JUDGES, WAS BLOCKED, BY SANDRA THEROULDE, WHO ONCE AGAIN, HAD  PREVENTED THE COURT, FROM REVIEWING THE URGENT MOTION, CLAIMING, THAT THE MOTION MUST BE FILED, IN ITS USUAL MANNER, WITH A DATE TO BE SET BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT. AS IF IT WAS A NORMAL SITUATION. SHE ALSO KNEW THE HARM, THAT THIS WOULD CAUSE TO ME, REGARDING THE EVICTION. AND THIS WAS PRECISELY, THE REASON WHY SHE HAS BLOCKED, THE URGENT MOTION. THE OTHER REASON, THAT IS RELATED TO THE FIRST, WAS TO AID THE DEFENDANT'S LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM, WHICH SHE AND THE COA STAFF, HAD BEEN DOING, OPENLY, AGAINST MY CASE, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.

THE LAW DOES NOT SAY THAT, WHEN IT COMES TO URGENT MOTIONS, THAT ARE BEFORE, THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, THAT A REGISTRAR CAN DELAY IT, BY NOT FILING IT AND REQUESTING THE MOVING PARTY, TO SERVE AND FILE OTHER DOCUMENTS, SUCH AS A FACTUM AND MOTION RECORD, BEFORE AN URGENT MOTION CAN BE HEARD. THE URGENCY OF THE MATTER, PROVIDES AN EXCEPTION, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  WHAT THE LAW DOES SAY IS THIS: (given in the practice directions, as well as the rules directly):

Practice Direction Concerning Civil Appeals at the Court of Appeal for Ontario

 Jump to Motions before Three Judges7.2. Except in cases of urgency, panel motions will not be scheduled for hearing until the moving party has filed the motion record, factum and transcript, if any. 2. The oral argument for panel motions shall be limited to 15 minutes for the moving party, 10 minutes for the responding party, and 5 minutes for reply.

There is clearly an exception to the rule, when it comes to urgent motions, that are before the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Yet this woman, Sandra Theroulde, as the deputy registrar, keep on interfering with my rights, under the law. She has instructed the judicial staff, not to file this urgent motion for a stay order and also for reviewing the order of the judge, Harvison Young, that was made on March 5th, dismissing that motion, for a stay, while my matter is still pending, before the Court of Appeal for Ontario. If that is not evidence, of a lack of procedural fairness, then all of the laws pertaining to that, should be rewritten. 

Sandra Theroulde, deputy registrar, now has blocked the urgent motion, for filing and is now requesting, that it be filed, as a regular motion, with service upon the defendant, through her lawyer, Jafari Delaram. As well as to provide a factum and motion record and all of the other actions, that goes with a regular filing of of a motion. She has no jurisdiction to do what she did, regarding my matter, that is presently, before the Court of Appeal for Ontario. 

TANASHA ADAMS, MOTIONS CLERK, AT THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, TO BE CHARGED WITH, CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, IN A LEGAL PROCEEDING. (This charge was the result of her numerous actions, on behalf of the defandant's lawyer, Jafari Delaram, to aid her in having an advantage, in the legal matter, that is before the COA).

Below is an email from Tanasha Adams, who works under the deputy registrar, Sandra Theroulde, and was advised by her, to informed me, about the status of my urgent motion. Of which a direct copy, was sent to also, to the email of Sandra Theroulde. 

Email from Tanasha Adams, on the instructions of, Sandra Theroulde, regarding the urgent motion.



CORRUPTION, AT THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. JUDGE HARVISON, YOUNG, DISMISSED MY MOTION FOR A STAY, WHILE MY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL, IS STILL BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL. THE CASE IS NOW APPEALED, TO THE PANEL OF JUDGES, OF THE COA. I AM NOW AWAITING, THE DECISION, FROM THE PANEL.

THIS JUDGE, HARVISON YOUNG, WILL BE CHARGED, IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, FOR CARRYING OUT TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, AGAINST ME.

THE CONTINUED PERSECUTION OF ME, BY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, THROUGH ITS COURTS.

A COURT OF APPEAL, SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGE,HARVISON YOUNG, HAS DENIED MY MOTION, FOR A STAY ORDER, TODAY, WHILE MY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL, IS STILL BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOR ONTARIO.  

THIS DECISION, BY THIS COA JUDGE, HARVISON YOUNG, WAS INTENDED, TO CAUSED ME IRREPARABLE HARM.  THIS IS FURTHER EVIDENCE, OF THE ABUSE, THAT I HAVE SUFFERED AND CONTINUES TO SUFFER, BY THE CANADIAN COURTS.
THE FACE THAT MOCKS JUSTICE


THE CORRUPT COA, JUDGE, HARVISON, YOUNG. DENIES MY MOTION FOR A STAY, WHILE MY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL, IS STILL BEFORE THE COURT. A LACK OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND A DENIAL OF MY RIGHTS. 

THE STAY ORDER, IS PART OF MY RIGHT, AS AN APPELLANT, WHILE MY MOTION FOR LEAVE, IS STILL PENDING, BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL. 

While she could not deny, my motion for leave to appeal, in the court of appeal, as a single judge,  she has denied the stay, that I had required, pending the hearing, of my motion for leave to appeal, before the panel. 

This is the wickedness of this judge and the evidence of her corruption, in the Canadian court. (Please see the evidence, on my blog, by scrolling down the page, and take a look at the physical evidence of violence, that was carried out against me, by the defendant, and for which this wicked judge, has also overlooked, in her decision, to dismissed my request, for a stay order, until the panel, can hear my motion for leave to appeal. 


* Please read the entire articles from my recent posts, on my blog, to see how much the Canadian courts, have denied my rights, under international human rights laws.  

BELOW, IS MY URGENT MOTION, FILED WITH THE COURT, ON MARCH 5, 2021, ASKING THE PANEL, TO REVERSE, THE DECISION, OF THE SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGE, HARVISON YOUNG, WHO DISMISSED MY MOTION, FOR A STAY ORDER, PENDING MY APPEAL, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.  THE COA AND THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, BOTH HAVE COPIES, OF THE MOTION FOR A STAY, APPEALED TO THE PANEL. SO NOW I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SHE PLANS TO DO WITH MY URGENT MOTION TODAY, AS IT CAN STILL BE HEARD, AT ANYTIME TODAY, UNTIL THE COURT CLOSES AT 5 P.M.




 

 

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, THE MOTION FOR A STAY ORDER, IS TO BE HEARD ON MARCH 5TH.

 THE SHENENIGANS, OF THE COURT OF APPEAL STAFF AND LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM, CONTINUES. THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA, TO INVESTIGATE, THE LAWYER'S CONDUCT.

LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM, TRYING TO BEND THE RULES, TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.

THE MOTION FOR A STAY ORDER, IS SCHEDULED, TO BE HEARD TODAY, ON MARCH 5TH.

The Sheriff did not come and evict me, like they all wanted on March 4th, and the hearing for the motion for a stay, is supposed to be heard today, at 10:00 a,m, in the Court of Appeal for Ontario. But the shenenigans of the lawyer, Jafari Delaram and her unnatural relationship, with the court's staff continues, as she tries to bend the rules and to influence the administrative staff, to give her what she is seeking. Which is to have my matters denied, in the court of appeal. 

So far only one of my matters, in the Court of Appeal for Ontario, is up for a hearing today, at the court. Delaram would like to see, all of my matters heard on the same day, including my motion for leave to appeal, which has NOT been scheduled to be heard, on March 5th.  And which must go before a panel of three judges, in the COA. Jafari Delaram, is trying to use her friendship with COA staff, to make things go her way.  My urgent motion for a stay order, is the only matter that is on the docket, to be heard today, March 5th.  Motions before a single judge, are not heard on Fridays, except for urgent motions, as mine is, according to the Practice Directions of the COA. Such motions are heard on Mondays and Wednesdays, in the Court of Appeal for Ontario. I had chosen Wedneday, for my motion for a Stay to be heard and the lawyer for the defendant, Jafari Delaram, asked the court to adjourned the hearing, to Friday, March 5th. And the COA had granted her request. Both the lawyer and the court knew, that the COA, generally do not hear motions, before a single motions judge, on a Friday, except for urgent motions. They were both hoping that the hearing would not even be necessary. At least the lawyer, Jafari Delaram, was hoping that this would be the case.

 The urgent motion for a stay, goes before a single motion judge, but the lawyer Jafari Delaram, who is now seeking to quash my appeal, via my motion for leave to appeal, and using her responding motion, in regard to my motion for a stay, to try and do so. This of course is not allowed, because in order to quash my motion for leave to appeal, she must file a motion before a panel. Which could include her responding motion, to my motion for leave to appeal.  And the COA would advised us both of the date of the hearing, of the motion for leave to appeal, before the panel of judges. That has not been done as yet by the COA. And it seem that Jafari Delaram, is trying to arrange, for the two motions, one before the single motion judge, for a stay order and the other motion for leave to appeal, which goes before a panel, to be heard on the same day. Why? Because she is seeking to quash my appeal, which the court has not granted has yet, since I need the court's permission (leave), to continue with my appeal from the Divisional court, that must be heard before a panel of judges and not a single motion judge, in the Court of Appeal for Ontario, under the rules. And she is trying to do so, under Rule 2.1.02, as frivolous and vexatious and which she has provided no evidence of such, before the court.

Rules 7.2.5, 7.2.1 and Rule 7.2.7. governs motions to quash an appeal, and also leave to appeal. Which Delaram wants to circumvent, in her responding motion, to my motion for a Stay. She has not served me with her motion, or responding motion, to quash my motion, for leave to appeal. She only served and filed a responding motion, in regards to my urgent motion, for a stay order, while my motion for leave to appeal, is before the Court of Appeal.

 One of my motions, the one for a stay, was filed as urgent, because of the harm that could be done to me, if it is not granted. The other motion for a leave to appeal, is not an urgent motion.

 


Wednesday, March 3, 2021

MAJOR CORRUPTION, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, WHEN A DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, CAN ADJOURNED A HEARING, INSTEAD OF A JUDGE. THEROULDE, " THE JUDGE, INSTRUCTED THE COURT STAFF, TO ADJOURNED THE MATTER". THE URGENT MATTER, WAS THEN PUT TO A LATER DATE, THAT WAS INTENDED TO CAUSE HARM, TO THE APPELLANT.

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION. DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, "JUDGE GAVE ME THE INSTRUCTIONS, TO ADJOURNED, YOUR CASE TO MARCH 5TH". WHY DID THIS JUDGE, WITH NO NAME, NOT HEAR THE CASE, THAT WAS UP THAT DAY, FOR A HEARING AND NOT ADJOURNED THE MATTER, HIMSELF?

SANDRA THEROULDE, DEPUTY REGISTRAR

 TIME LINE OF EVENTS ON MARCH 3RD.

* At 9 a.m, Sandra Theroule, Deputy Registrar, advised me, on the telephone, that my scheduled urgent motion, for a Stay order, was going to be brought before the court, at 10:00 a.m, the time that it was to be heard.

* By late afternoon, on March 3rd, the urgent motion, was still not brought before the court, to be heard. At which time, Sandra Theroulde, deputy registrar, then informed me, that the lawyer for the defendant, Jafari Delaram, who had sent an email to the court, at 12:30 p.m, and was requesting that the urgent motion for a stay, be heard on March 5th, which would allow the eviction to be carried out on March 4th. Sandra Theroulde, agreed with the lawyer. 

                                                                                               

 * The urgent motion,was not brought before the court to be heard, by the judge.

 * Sandra Theroulde, then claimed that the judge, gave the court staff, the permission to adjourned the               the hearing, for March 5th. Without reviewing, the urgent motion, that was up for a hearing on March 3rd, the day the Registrar adjourned it, to March 5th. And one day later, after the eviction was to be carried out, against the appellant.

 SANDRA THEROULDE, THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND MANGER OF THE COURT JUDICIAL STAFF, AFTER SHE HAD WITHHOLD THE URGENT MOTION, UNTIL THE END OF THE DAY AND HAD NOT BROUGHT IT, BEFORE THE COURT, AS IT WAS ALREADY SCHEDULED, TO BE HEARD THAT DAY, ON MARCH 3RD, THEN CLAIMED THAT A JUDGE, THAT REMAINED UNNAMED, HAD INSTRUCTED THE COURT STAFF, TO ADJOURNED THE CASE, TO A LATER DATE, TO FRIDAY MARCH 5TH, WITHOUT THE JUDGE, EVEN LOOKING AT THE CASE. 

THE MATTER WAS AN URGENT MOTION, THAT WAS BEFORE THE COURT THAT DAY. AND UNDER THE LAW, SINCE IT WAS ALREADY SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SEEN AND REVIEWED THE MATTER, AND THEN TO DECIDE IF IT WAS TO BE HEARD, OR ADJOURNED, AND TO MAKE THAT DECISION IN WRITING AND ALSO TO GIVE THE REASONS, FOR THE DECISION. IF WE ARE TO BELIEVE, SANDRA THEROULDE'S  STATEMENT, THEN THE JUDGE, WHO ALONE CAN MAKE A DECISION, ON A CASE BEFORE THE COURT, THEN INSTRUCTED THE COURT STAFF, ALLEGEDLY, TO DO HER LEGAL DUTY, FOR HER, AS A JUDGE. ACCORDING TO SANDRA THEROULDE, DEPUTY REGISTRAR.

WE STILL DO NOT HAVE A NAME, FOR THIS JUDGE, THAT THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, WHO TOOK OVER THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE, IN THIS MATTER AND POSTPONED THE URGENT MOTION, TO A LATER DATE, WHILE KNOWING THAT BY DOING SO, THAT THE APPELLANT, WOULD SUFFER HARM. AS THIS WAS ALSO THE INTENDED MOTIVE, ON THE PART OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE AND THE COURT, FOR DOING SO. THE DELAY OF THE HEARING, WAS DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL, ON THE PART OF THE COURT OF APPEAL'S STAFF AND THE ALLEGED JUDGE, WHO GAVE THE COURT STAFF, THE INSTRUCTIONS TO DO SO, ALLEGEDLY.

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION. DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, "JUDGE GAVE ME INSTRUCTIONS, TO ADJOURNED, YOUR CASE TO MARCH 5TH". WHY DID THIS JUDGE, WITH NO NAME, NOT HEAR THE CASE, THAT WAS UP THAT DAY, FOR A HEARING AND NOT ADJOURNED THE MATTER, HIMSELF?

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, JUDGE, WHOSE NAME WAS NOT GIVEN, BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, ALLEGEDLY, INSTRUCTED THE COURT STAFF, TO ADJOURNED MY URGENT MOTION, THAT WAS UP FOR A HEARING, ON MARCH 3RD, TO MARCH 5TH. SINCE ON MARCH 4TH, THE APPELLANT, WAS SCHEDULED TO BE EVICTED, BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. WHILE HER OTHER MATTERS, WERE STILL BEFORE, THE COURT OF APPEAL. AND THOSE OTHER MATTERS, MAINLY, HER MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL, WAS NOT HEARD AS YET, IN THE SAME COURT.

WHICH JUDGE, WHO KNOWS THE LAW AND IS BOUND BY IT, TO ACT IN A FAIR MANNER, WOULD ADJOURNED A HEARING, WITHOUT EVEN REVIEWING THE MATTER, TO A LATER DATE, KNOWING THAT BY DOING SO, THAT IT WOULD ALSO CAUSED, THE APPELLANT IRREPARABLE HARM?  AND TO ASKED THE COURT STAFF, TO DO HER LEGAL DUTY, ON BEHALF OF THE JUDGE?  DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, "JUDGE GAVE ORAL INSTRUCTIONS, TO THE COURT STAFF, TO ADJOURN THE MATTER"    

THIS IS ALSO EVIDENCE, OF THE HARM, THAT THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT AND ITS COURTS, WITH ITS CORRUPT JUDGES AND STAFF, HAS DONE AGAINST ME, WHO IS THE VICTIM, OF THIS GROSS INJUSTICE, THAT WAS CARRIED OUT, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

 

DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, ACTED OUTSIDE OF HER JURISDICTION AND ADJOURNED, THE URGENT MOTION, THAT A JUDGE WAS TO DECIDE ON, AT THE SCHEDULED HEARING DATE, OF MARCH 3, 2021..

CORRUPTION, AT THE COURT OF APPEAL. AND BRINGING DISHONOR UPON THE COURT. THERE SHOULD BE CHARGES LAID, FOR OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, IN THIS CASE, BY THE COURT STAFF. 

DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, ACTED OUTSIDE OF HER JURISDICTION AND ADJOURNED, THE URGENT MOTION, THAT A JUDGE WAS TO DECIDE ON, AT THE SCHEDULED HEARING DATE, OF MARCH 3, 2021. 

HOW THE COA AND ITS STAFF, INCLUDING, THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, DELAYED, MY URGENT MOTION, THAT THEY KNEW, WOULD CAUSED ME HARM.

I was directly told, by the Deputy Registrar, Sandra Theroulde, on March 3rd, at about 3 p.m. that the urgent motion, would NOT be presented, to the sitting judge and going back on her word earlier, that the scheduled urgent motion, would be heard at 10. a.m. today. I had contacted her, to find out the status of the urgent motion, and she told me that SHE WILL NOT, present the urgent motion, to the judge to be heard, and that  AFTER speaking with the lawyer, Jafari Delaram, that the matter WILL be adjourned, until Friday, March 3rd. It was clear from her actions and words, that she had made the decision, to adjourned the matter, on her own and her actual words to me were that, THE COURT WILL NOT HEAR, THE URGENT MOTION TODAY, after it was scheduled to be heard. And that was not a decision, that the court had made at the time. 

DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, DID NOT PRESENT MY URGENT MOTION, TO THE JUDGE, AFTER CONFIRMING ON MARCH 3, 2021, CONTRARY TO HER EARLIER STATEMENT, THAT THE MATTER WOULD BE HEARD TODAY, AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD.  INSTEAD, SHE DECIDED ON HER OWN, TO ADJOURN THE MATTER, UNTIL FRIDAY, MARCH 5TH. WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF HER JURISDICTION, TO DO SO. ONLY A JUDGE CAN ADJOURNED THE MATTER, AFTER REVIEWING IT, NOT THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR.

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, AFTER CONFIRMING WITH ME, BY TELEPHONE, THIS MORNING, WEDNESDAY MARCH 3RD, THAT MY URGENT MOTION, FOR A STAY ORDER, WOULD BE BEFORE THE JUDGE, AT THE COURT OF APPEAL, AT 10:A.M, NOW WENT BACK ON HER WORD AND DID NOT PRESENT MY MATTER TO THE COURT, BUT INSTEAD HAS ACTED UPON THE ADVICE OF THE LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM, TO DELAY MY MATTER, UNTIL FRIDAY MARCH 5TH, SO THE EVICTION, CAN BE CARRIED OUT, ON MARCH 4TH.

The excuse presented by the Deputy Registrar, Sandra Theroulde, that the court did not get the lawyer's reponding motion is a lie and contradicts the actual evidence, that the court had received, the motion record of the lawyer, Jafari Delaram, on March 2nd, at 10:33 a.m. after she had served me with her motion record. The lawyer was served, with the Amended motion for a Stay order, on March 1, st. (See the article below, to view the proof, of the filing of the lawyer, Jafari Delaram's motion record, with the court, on March 2nd, at 10:33 a.m. Which contradict what the Deputy Registrar, Sandra Theroulde, is saying about the court's position. And for delaying the matter, on that basis. The lawyer herself, after filing the document, has said in her response, that delaying the matter, until Friday, March 5th, WAS NO LONGER NECESSARY. (See the actual document, with her statement, in the copy of the image in this article below). 

The Deputy Registrar, Sandra Theroulde, is now saying, that the court of appeal and the judge, need time to review the respondent's materials. WELL, IT WAS FILED WITH THE COURT, TWO DAYS AGO. AND IT IS AN URGENT MOTION, THAT I HAVE FILED!  

In lawyer, Jefari Delaram's email to the court on Monday, March 1st, she claimed, that  my urgent motion should be thrown out and she sent the email to a staff at the COA, Taneka Adams, who in all appearance, is helping this lawyer, in ways that goes against the law. That is, in trying to interfere with the procedure of the court, regarding my matter. It is also called obstructing justice. 

WHY WOULD THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, NOT PRESENT THE URGENT MOTION FOR A STAY, BEFORE THE JUDGE, HAS SHE HAS SAID TO ME, THIS MORNING, WHEN THE URGENT MOTION WAS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD?. WHY HAS SHE NOW DELAYED MY MATTER FURTHER, ON THE ADVICE OF THE DEFENDANT'S LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM, UNTIL FRIDAY MARCH 5TH, SO THAT THE EVICTION, CAN BE CARRIED OUT AGAINST ME, ON MARCH 4TH?.  HOW CAN ANYONE NOT SEE THAT THIS DELAY, IN CHANGING THE DATE, OF SCHEDULED MOTION, AND NOT BY THE JUDGE, WAS ILLEGAL AND OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION, OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE?

ONLY A JUDGE, CAN CHANGE THE DATE, ON A MOTION TO BE HEARD AND NOT THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR. IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION, OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE MOTION, THAT WAS ALREADY SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD, BY A JUDGE. THE URGENT MOTION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN FORWARDED, TO THE JUDGE AND FOR THE JUDGE TO DECIDE ON THE MATTER, WHETHER TO PROCEED OR NOT, AND NOT FOR THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, TO ADJOURN IT ON HER OWN. THAT IS ILLEGAL. 

Note: After contacting, the Deputy Registrar, Sandra Theroulde, again and and informing her, that it was outside of her jurisdiction, to adjourned my matter, and that only a judge can do so, I later received an email from the clerk, advising me that the matter, was reviwed by a single motion judge, (no name of the judge was given, or any endorsement of the judge, was forwarded in the email, unlike the endorsement of the judge on February 25, who had reviewed the ex parte motion and I had a record, via the endorsement, of the decision of the judge directly). 
PLEASE NOTICE, THAT THERE IS NO ENDORSEMENT, FROM THE JUDGE AS PROOF, THAT THE MATTER, WAS REVIEWED BY A JUDGE. ONLY A STATEMENT THAT IT WAS, WITHOUT ANY PROOF. THIS EMAIL WAS SENT, ONLY MINUTES AFTER THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, WAS ADVISED, THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION, OR AUTHORITY, TO ADJOURNED THE MATTER AND ONLY A JUDGE COULD DO SO. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MOST UNLIKELY, THAT A JUDGE (WHO WAS UNNAMED IN THE EMAIL), COULD HAVE REVIEWED THE CASE AND TO MAKE THAT DECISION, AND FOR THE COURT NOT TO HAVE HAD THAT DECISION, IN WRITING BY THE JUDGE, VIA AN ENDORSEMENT.



  Sandra Theroulde's, emails below and her response, about the lack of proof, that a judge had reviwed my matter and claiming that the judge, only gave instructions to the clerk, to adjourned the urgent motion, without putting her decision in writing, as the law requires a judge to do. There is no proof provided by the Deputy Registrar, concerning the judge who has made such a decision, or a copy of the endorsement, with the reasons that are given by the judge, in making the decision, to adjorned the matter, to March 5th. 

A judge is bound by law, to put the decision in writing, as well as the reasons for the decision. Sandra Theroulde herself, had directly told me, that she would not present the matter, to the judge. And that the matter will be adjourned, from the hearing date of March 3rd, to March 5th. In her attempt to delay the urgent motion, until after the eviction date, of March 4th.


 


Tuesday, March 2, 2021

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, SANDRA THEROULDE, REGISTRAR, AND OTHER STAFF, BLOCKING MY MOTION FOR A STAY, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.

SANDRA THEROULDE, THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, HAS OUTRIGHT BLOCKED, MY URGENT MOTION, FOR A STAY ORDER.

THEY ARE FIGHTING HARD, TO BLOCK MY MOTION, FOR A STAY, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, TO BE HEARD ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2021.

I WOULD CALL THIS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

SANDRA THEROULDE, THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, HAS OUTRIGHT BLOCKED, MY URGENT MOTION, FOR A STAY ORDER. IN HER EMAIL TO ME, DATED MARCH 2ND, SHE HAS MADE A CLAIM, THAT I DID NOT FILE, A MOTION FOR A STAY, ONLY A NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL. 


 
 HER EMAIL TO ME, IS DATED MARCH 2ND, TODAY, AND SHOWS THAT SHE MAY NOT ALLOW, MY MOTION FOR A STAY ORDER, IN THE COA, TO GO AHEAD TOMORROW. 

I HAVE SEEN CLEAR EVIDENCE, IN THIS CASE, THAT THE COURT OF APPEAL, STAFF, AS WITH THE DIVISIONAL COURT, PREVIOUSLY, HAS HELPED THE DEFENDANT, IN THE CASE THAT IS BEFORE THE COURT, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, BLOCKING MY EFFORTS IN THE COURT.

I WILL PROVE HERE, THAT I DID FILE THE MOTION FOR A STAY AND THAT A SINGLE MOTION JUDGE HAD ALSO MADE AN ENDORSEMENT (THE ENDORSEMENT FROM THE JUDGE, IS PROOF, AGAINST THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR'S CLAIM, REGARDING MY MOTION FOR A STAY ORDER, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.



 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE EX PARTE MOTION WAS THEN AMENDED AND WAS TO BE HEARD, ON MARCH 3RD AT 10: A.M.  THEY ARE BLOCKING ME, FROM HAVING THE MOTION FOR A STAY, HEARD ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3RD AT 10:00 A.M, BECAUSE THEY WANT THE EVICTION, TO BE CARRIED OUT ON MARCH 4TH. THIS WOULD ALSO PREVENT MY APPEAL, FROM MOVING FORWARD, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. THE COURT OF APPEAL STAFF, ARE TRYING TO BLOCK MY MOTION FOR A STAY, ON WEDNESDAY MARCH 3RD, AS PART OF THE OVERALL CONSPIRACY AGAINST ME. THIS CONSPIRACY, ALSO INVOLVE THE CANADIAN COURTS. I EXPECT MY URGENT MOTION FOR A STAY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, TO GO AHEAD ON MARCH 3RD, DESPITE WHAT THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SANDRA THEROULDE, IS CLAIMING IN HER EMAIL TO ME. I HAVE ACTUALLY FILED TWO MOTIONS, IN THE COA, AS CONFIRMED BY THE DEFENDANT'S LAWYER, JAFARI DELARAM'S RESPONDING MOTION. I HAVE FILED IN THE COA, A MOTION FOR A STAY, AND A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL, TO THE COA.





ROXANNE PARIS, A MANAGER, IN THE URGENT CIVIL INTAKE OFFICE, AT THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, TO BE FACE A CHARGE, OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, CONSPIRACY AND CORRUPTION, AND BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST. IN DELIBERATELY, BLOCKING, MY URGENT MOTION, IN THE COURT.

AFTER FILING MY URGENT MOTION, AT THE COURTHOUSE, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, I WAS TOLD THAT IT WENT DIRECTLY, TO THE CIVIL URGENT MO...