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.