Tuesday, December 21, 2021

TAKESHAH GENTLES, REGISTRAR, AT THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO. HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?. MOTION RECORD WENT MISSING FROM COURT FILE, AT THE URGENT MOTION HEARING, ON DECEMBER 20TH. MOTION HAD TO BE ADJOURNED.

THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO AND THE REGISTRAR, TAKESHAH GENTLES, NEED TO EXPLAIN TO ME AND TO THE PUBLIC, HOW THE MOTION RECORD'S CONTENT, WAS MISSING FROM THE FILE, AT THE HEARING?. 

WAS THIS AN ATTEMPT, TO INTERFERE WITH, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE? IN MY VIEW, IT WAS NOT AN OVERSIGHT, BUT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT, TO INFLUENCED THE OUTCOME OF THE HEARING. 

AND AS A RESULT, THE URGENT MOTION, HAD TO BE ADHOURNED, AND RESCHEDULED, FOR ANOTHER HEARING, IN JANUARY OF 2022.

MORE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE IS EVIDENT, BY THIS LATEST INCIDENT, IN THE CANADIAN COURT, AGAINST ME. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME, THAT DOCUMENTS HAVE GONE MISSING, FROM THE COURT FILES, IN REGARDS TO MY CASE. AND THE REGISTRAR, TAKESHAH GENTLES, NOT BEING ABLE TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT, AS TO HOW THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED?. THIS LATEST INCIDENT, WILL NOT GO UN INVESTIGATED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER INVESTIGATIVE BODIES, WILL BE ASKED TO INVESTIGATE, THIS LATEST INCIDENT. DOCUMENTS JUST DON'T GO MISSING, FROM COURT FILES, WHEN THERE IS A HEARING. 

 The equitable relief that was sought in that urgent motion, also was not heard, because of the fact that the Motion Record's content, according to the judge, Justice Matheson, who presided over the hearing on December 20th, was missing.  And only the front and back covers and the Table of Content, of the Motion Record, was available at the hearing. She also had proof that the Motion Record was filed with the Divisional Court, because the counsel for the landlord, had filed his responding motion, to my urgent motion and from his materials, she was able to see some of the contents, that was a part of my Motion Record, the judge said. But as for my Motion Record, to go with the urgent motion that was filed on December 1, 2021, it went missing from the court file, and only the covers and the table of content, was available at the hearing.

The public should also be aware, that aside from filing the physical copies of my motion, with the Divisional court, litigants are also suppose to file an electronic copy and upload it to the Case Line. Because of the difficulty, that I was having uploading, my documents to case line, the court at that time, had only the physical copies of the motion. Including, the Motion Record and Factum, regarding my urgent motion for equitable relief, that was seeking an order, pending my appeal in the Divisional court, to be let back into my apartment, while the appeal is before the court.  Naturally, I was looking forward to having the hearing of the urgent motion on December 20th, but was disappointed when the judge Justice Matheson, informed me at the hearing, that she only had before her, the covers and the table of content only, of the Motion Record. Which basically, contained the evidence that I was relying on, at the hearing. I was given a choice by the judge, to proceed with the hearing, without the documents, or to adjourned the hearing. The judge also claimed that she was able to see what documents were missing from my Motion Record, that was file with the court, by viewing the Respondent's Responding Motion Record (to my Motion). So it was evident from that information, that the court had my documents, that was filed, pertaining to my urgent motion, since the Divisional court and the landlord's counsel, was served at the same time. Why my documents went missing, from the court file, at the time of the hearing, should be seriously considered, by any reasonable person, who is reading this article. 

By the way, Justice Matheson took over the hearing, on December 20th, after I had filed a motion last week, to recused another judge of the Divisonal court, Justice Corbett, who was the Case Conference judge, from hearing the Urgent Motion, after what amounts to be evidence, of the apprehension of bias, on his part. Next thing I know, my documents went missing from the court file, for the hearing of that urgent motion. And the court staff, who are responsible for the administrative duties of the court, including the Registrar, as the Manager of the court, Takeshah Gentles, are mum on the matter.

As of this date, Takeshah Gentles, as the Registrar, have not looked into my inquiry, about the missing documents, from the court file. I will not let this matter rest, because of the harm done to me, due to the delay that was caused, by the adjournment of the case, until some authority has investigated thoroughly, what has happened and to make sure that something like this, never happens again. Not to me, or to any other self represented litigant, in any Canadian court.







Thursday, December 16, 2021

TORONTO JUDGE, DAVID CORBETT, HAS REFUSED TO RECUSED HIMSELF, FROM HEARING MY URGENT MOTION, ON DECEMBER 20TH. AS THE CASE MANAGEMENT JUDGE, HE HAS SHOWN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF BIAS AND SYSTEMATIC RACISM, INVOLVING MY CASE, IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT.

THE CASE MANAGEMENT JUDGE, DAVID CORBETT, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO, HAS REFUSED TO RECUSED HIMSELF, FROM HEARING MY SECOND URGENT MOTION, AFTER HE HAD MOOTED THE FIRST MOTION AND APPEAL THAT GOES WITH THAT MOTION, FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF. AND WITHOUT CONDUCTING, A HEARING, FOR BOTH.

THE CASE MANAGEMENT JUDGE, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT IN TORONTO, JUDGE DAVID CORBETT, WAS SERVED WITH MY MOTION, TO RECUSE HIMSELF, FROM HEARING MY URGENT MOTION, FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF, ON DECEMBER 20, 2021. THE MOTION WAS MADE, AFTER THE JUDGE HAS CONTINUED TO ACT IN A MANNER, THAT SHOWS THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF BIAS, OR THE APPREHENSION OF BIAS, ON HIS PART, AND THAT THIS DOES NOT GO WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO HAVE A FAIR HEARING, SHOULD HE MAKE HIMSELF THE TRIAL JUDGE AND HEAR MY URGENT MOTION. 

THE JUDGE RESPONDED, TO THE MOTION TO RECUSE HIMSELF, BY SETTING A DATE FOR JANUARY 7TH, WHERE THE PARTIES WILL RESPOND TO IT AND THEN A DATE IN THE FUTURE, TO HEAR THE MOTION. AND ALL OF THIS WAS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS TO REMOVED HIMSELF, FROM BEING THE TRIAL JUDGE, AFTER HE HAS BEEN THE CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE, FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, CONCERNING MY APPEALS AND URGENT MOTIONS, BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COURT, FROM THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD. AND AS THE CASE CONFERENCE JUDGE, HE WAS ALSO PRIVY TO INFORMATION, ABOUT THE CASE, BEFORE IT WAS HEARD AT A HEARING, OR TRIAL. 

* Previously, at the Case Conference on November 17, 2021, the said judge, Corbett, had made the statement, that another judge, or himself, will hear the motion. He already knew, that by case managing the appeal, that he was also not qualified, to be the trial judge, at the hearing on December 20th.

* A further bias on the part of Judge D. Corbett, was to give the landlord's lawyer, and the L&T Board, two weeks to respond to my urgent motion, that was filed with the court on December 1st. While he gave me until December 7th, to file any other materials. In fact, the hearing is scheduled for December 20th and I have been given by the same judge, less than two days to respond, to the defendant's responding motion, to my urgent motion. Since I was served with their  responding motion on December 16th and the hearing is on Monday, December 20th, I hardly have two full days, to respond to their motions.  And there are two other parties, to this appeal. So, Judge Corbett, has given me two days to provide my written response, regarding the two other parties to this appeal. They got fifteen days, or two weeks and I got only two days, to respond, from the same judge.

* Judge Corbett, has never had a hearing of my earlier urgent motion, or appeal, before mooting and dismissing them.  Try appealing a case that has never been heard and see if that is possible. 

* By mooting that appeal, he also done away with the protection in the order, from the L&T Board, that was being appeal/reviewed. As I had only disagreed with part of the order, but wanted the other protections in the same order to continue. No thanks to Judge Corbett, that order now has been dismissed and without a hearing at the Divisional court.

* He continues to give his decisions, via email and through the court staff. Instead of making an order, or an endorsement, of his decisions.

* Making impossible demands, such as wanting me to argue against some "undisputed facts", in the decision of the Board, that were in fact disputed, by the evidence that I have presented. E.g. That the keys were returned by the former tenant on July 28th, when the audio evidence said otherwise.



Ontario Judge, David Corbett, of the Divisional Court,
in Toronto, continues to hear my appeals and urgent motions, while showing evidence of bias and 
possibly reprisal, against me, for discussing publicly on my Blog, about his actions. He is also the 
case conference judge, who has been facilitating my appeals, for months and now wants to be the trial judge, as well. And without granting me any reliefs sought, in my previous urgent motions. Indeed, there has never been a hearing until now, scheduled for December 20th, where he continues to make himself, the presiding judge, over my matters before the court. Despite the obvious signs of bias on his part. All that this judge has been doing, was to send his decisions, via emails and through the court's staff, rather than to made an order, or endorsement, of his decisions. 


CONCERNS WERE RAISED, WHEN THE JUDGE WENT BACK ON HIS OWN ORDER AND DENIED ME THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE WITH MY APPEAL AND URGENT MOTION, BY MOOTING THEM  AND LATER DISMISSING THEM. THOSE TWO MATTERS WERE FILED ON OCTOBER 19, 2021 AND ON OCTOBER 29TH THE SAID JUDGE MADE AN ORDER, TO STAY THE APPEAL, UNTIL THE HEARING OF MY T2 APPLICATION, AT THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, AT WHICH TIME THE ORDER STATED, THAT I COULD THEN LIFT THE STAY AND CONTINUED WITH THE APPEAL. THE JUDGE LATER RESCINDED THAT ORDER AND AT THE CASE CONFERENCE HEARING, ON NOVEMBER 17TH, HE THEN DENIED LIFTING THE STAY ON THE APPEAL, CONTRARY TO HIS OWN ORDER.

THAT ORDER THAT WAS STAYED, (FROM THE LANDLORD AND TENANT BOARD, DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 2021), ALSO PROTECTED MY TENANCY AND MY PROPERTY, FROM THE LANDLORD'S ACTIONS. 

ALTHOUGH MAKING THE ORDER, TO STAY THE APPEAL AND THE URGENT MOTION, THE JUDGE WENT BACK ON HIS OWN WORDS AND MOOTED THE APPEAL AND THE URGENT MOTION.  THE JUDGE ALSO DID NOT SIGN HIS OWN ORDER. THIS POSED A PROBLEM LATER ON, WHEN I WANTED TO APPEAL HIS DECISION, TO MOOT BOTH THE URGENT MOTION AND THE APPEAL.  






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...