CANADA REVENUE AGENCY AND THE CROOKED LANDLORDS, PUI YI WONG AKA FANNY WONG AND SUET WAN WONG AKA KEN WONG, WHO IS ALLEGED, TO OWE CRA, NEARLY HALF A MILLION DOLLARS, IN BACK TAXES, REGARDING THEIR ILLEGAL ROOMING HOUSE. WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN OPERATING, ILLEGALLY, FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS.

CANADA REVENUE AGENCY, HAS BEEN CALLED CORRUPT AND COMPLICIT, IN HOW IT HAS ALLOWED, SOME INDIVIDUALS TO GET AWAY, WITH HIDING FROM THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, THEIR BUSINESS INCOME AND ESPECIALLY, FROM ILLICIT GAINS. WHILE GOING AFTER THE POORER CANADIANS, WHO NEITHER HAS THE MEANS, NOR THE MOTIVE, TO SCAM THE GOVERNMENT. 

FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS, TWO LANDLORDS, PUI YI WONG AND SUET WAN WONG, IN MARKHAM ONTARIO, HAVE OPERATED AN ILLEGAL ROOMING HOUSE, WITHOUT A LICENSE, LOCATED AT 16 CARDIFF ROAD, IN MARKHAM, ONTARIO. WHICH WAS ALSO ORDERED CLOSED DOWN LAST YEAR, AND WHICH IT IS DOUBTFUL, IF THEY HAVE EVER COMPLIED WITH THAT ORDER, FROM THE CITY OF MARKHAM, FIRE SERVICES.  THEY ALSO, ALLEGEDLY, OWED TO THE CANADA REVENUE AGENCY, NEARLY HALF A MILLION DOLLARS, IN BACK TAXES.  SINCE THEIR OPERATION, OF THE ROOMING HOUSE WAS ILLEGAL, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, SUCH AS NOT HAVING A LICENSE, TO OPERATE IT AND THAT IT WAS ALSO AGAINST THE ZONING BYLAW.  THE INCOME FROM IT WAS ALSO, ALLEGEDLY, NOT REPORTED TO CANADA REVENUE AGENCY, FOR FEAR OF LOSING, THE PROFITABLE BUSINESS, THAT THEY NEVER HAD TO REPORT, TO THE GOVERNMENT, UNLESS THEY WERE FORCED TO DO SO. SO WHY DID THE CANADA REVENUE AGENCY, NOT GO AFTER THOSE TWO CROOKED PERSONS, THE WONGS, FOR SO MANY YEARS?  THAT IS A VALID QUESTION.  AND HOW MANY OTHER HOMEOWNERS LIKE THESE TWO, ARE THERE IN ONTARIO AND EVEN IN CANADA?.  WHO HAS BEEN ABLE TO DODGED THE TAXMAN AND HAS AVOIDED REPORTING THEIR BUSINESS INCOME, FROM THEIR ILLEGAL ROOMING HOUSES?.  THE FACT IS THAT THE CRA, HAS BEEN COMPLICIT, IN INVESTIGATING, THOSE KINDS OF FRAUD. IT SPENDS FAR MORE TIME, GOING AFTER THE WRONG PEOPLE. INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ITS INVESTIGATIONS, ON GOING AFTER THOSE, LIKE THESE TWO CROOKS, PUI YI WONG AND SUET WAN WONG, WHO HAVE BEEN, RIPPING OFF, THE GOVERNMENT FOR YEARS. UNTIL THEIR WHOLE OPERATION, WAS EXPOSED TO THE AUTHORITIES, LAST YEAR. BUT THE CRA, DID NOT MOVE FAST ENOUGH, AGAINST THEM. AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES, WERE ALSO IN COHORTS WITH THEM.

 THE REAL NUMBER, IN REGARDS TO HOME OWNERS, WHO HAS SCAMMED THE CRA IN THIS WAY, IS ACTUALLY MORE THAN, CANADA REVENUE AGENCY, IS ALSO WILLING TO ADMIT. WHEN THOSE TWO HOMEOWNERS, MENTIONED EARLIER, CAN GET AWAY WITH NEARLY HALF A MILLION DOLLARS, ALLEGEDLY, IN UNREPORTED INCOME, TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND STILL CONTINUES TO ROB THE GOVERNMENT, WITH THE OPERATION OF THE ILLEGAL ROOMING HOUSE,  THEN YOU GET TO SEE THE DISPARITY, ON HOW CRA, DEALS WITH THIS KIND OF TAX FRAUD.  AND IN THE BIGGER PICTURE, YOU GET TO SEE HOW CANADA FUNCTIONS, IN GENERAL. EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT THIS FACT.  THIS IS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF, IS CORRUPT IN ITS FUNCTIONING, SO THEY LIKEWISE ALSO FITS THE AGENDA, OF THE GOVERNMENT.

 

THE HIDDEN CRIMES, OF CANADA. I AM REPORTING CANADA, TO THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL AND THE UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE. TWO OF THE AREAS THAT CANADA, HAS CARRIED OUT TORTURE AND OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, GAINST ME.

IT IS TIME TO EXPOSE THE LIE, ABOUT CANADA'S TRUE ACTIONS, ON HUMAN RIGHTS. THE SHOCKING TRUTH, THAT CANADA CARRIES OUT TORTURE AND OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, RIGHT UNDER THE NOSES, OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION, ON HUMAN RIGHTS. 

CANADA IS AN EMBARRASSMENT, BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS AND TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.  AS A MEMBER STATE, OF THE UNITED NATIONS, FOR CARRYING OUT TORTURE AND OTHER KINDS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, WHILE ACTING AS A MEMBER OF THE UN'S HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL.

 

 

THE PERSONAL ORDEAL, OF ONE TORTURE VICTIM, LIVING IN CANADA, THIS BLOGGER, THAT CANADA HAS, PERSISTENTLY, CARRIED OUT TORTURE AND OTHER CRIMES OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, AGAINST.  THE HORRIFIC DETAILS, OF  WHICH HAS CANADA AND ITS OFFICIALS, IN THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES AND COURTS, NOW BEING INVESTIGATED, AS CRIMINALS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS, THAT PROTECTS HUMAN RIGHTS, SUCH AS THOSE UNDER THE ROME STATUTE, OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. 

THIS VIDEO, IS AS RELEVANT TODAY, AS IT WAS 11 YEARS AGO, WHEN IT WAS MADE, CONCERNING, THE ABUSE OF THE VICTIM'S RIGHTS, BY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT. THAT WAS CARRIED OUT, THROUGH IT'S VARIOUS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, (FROM LOCAL, ALL THE WAY TO THE FEDERAL AGENCIES, SUCH AS CANADA REVENUE AGENCY), TO ITS POLICE AND INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, AND ITS COURTS AND TRIBUNALS AND THOSE INVOLVED, WHO HAS TAKEN ACTIONS TO VIOLATED HER HUMAN RIGHTS, UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAWS. INCLUDING THOSE UNDER THE ROME STATUTE, FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT OR TREATMENT.

THE VICTIM, OF THIS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE, IS CURRENTLY PUTTING TOGETHER A LIST, OF ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS, WORKING FOR THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, IN THEIR VARIOUS CAPACITIES, WHO HAVE ACTED TO VIOLATE HER HUMAN RIGHTS, CONTRARY TO THE UN'S CHARTER AND SPECIFICALLY, UNDER THE ROME STATUTE, WHERE THEY CAN ALSO BE CHARGED, FOR THEIR CRIMES, AGAINST THE VICTIM.

 

T.O. LAWYER JASON TAM'S PERSONAL CORRUPTION. WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU CALL IT? JASON TAM CALLED AN APPEAL, ABOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AN, "ABUSE OF PROCESS"..

 LAWYER, JASON TAM, MAKES HIMSELF TO BE, BIGGER THAN THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION,  BY TELLING THE COURT, (IN HIS SUBMISSIONS), TO THROW OUT AN APPEAL, OVER A CHARTER OF RIGHTS VIOLATION, BECAUSE IT WAS, "AN ABUSE OF PROCESS". 

TORONTO LAWYER, JASON TAM, WHO WORKS FOR, THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, YES! YOU HEARD THAT RIGHT, CALLED THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL, IN IT'S ENTIRETY, "AN ABUSE OF PROCESS". THE APPEAL ALSO INVOLVED, A CHARTER OF RIGHTS VIOLATION, UNDER SECTION 8, OF THE CHARTER. 

LAWYER, JASON TAM, WHO WORKS FOR THE MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WANTS THE ACRB TO THROW OUT AN APPEAL, THAT HAS AS ITS BASIS, A CHARTER OF RIGHTS VIOLATION, UNDER SECTION 8, AGAINST AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THAT WAS CARRIED OUT, NOT ONCE, OR TWICE, BUT THREE TIMES, WITHOUT A WARRANT. 

I AM SERIOUSLY LOOKING, INTO WHETHER OR NOT, LAWYER JASON TAM, CAN BE SUED OVER THIS STATEMENT.  OR OF SOME OTHER KINDS OF LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST HIM.  I ALSO WOULD NOT MIND, SEEING HIM REMOVED, AS A COUNSEL, FOR THE SOCIAL JUSTICE TRIBUNAL AND THE MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

LAWYER JASON TAM, WILL SAY JUST ABOUT ANYTHING, TO KEEP HIS HEFTY SALARY, AT THE MINISTRY. BUT DOES HE DESERVED SUCH A SALARY, WHEN HE IS ALSO ATTACKING, PEOPLE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS?. THOSE ARE SUPPOSEDLY, THE GUARANTEED RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND ALSO THE INHERENT RIGHTS, OF ALL CANADIANS. SO WHO IS THIS LAWYER, TO TAKE A VIOLATION UNDER THE, CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM, SO LIGHTLY?. 

WHERE DOES HE GET OFF, SAYING THAT IT IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS, IF SOMEONE'S RIGHTS HAS BEEN VIOLATED, UNDER THE CHARTER?

TORONTO LAWYER, JASON TAM, WHO WORKS FOR, THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, YES! YOU HEARD THAT RIGHT, CALLED THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL, IN IT'S ENTIRETY, "AN ABUSE OF PROCESS". THE APPEAL ALSO INVOLVED, A CHARTER OF RIGHTS VIOLATION, UNDER SECTION 8, OF THE CHARTER.

THE APPEAL IS ABOUT A CHARTER OF RIGHTS VIOLATION, UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE CANADIAN CHARTER  OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS., BY THE ANIMAL WELFARE SERVICE INSPECTORS, WHO HAD ILLEGALLY ENTERED INTO THE APPELLANT'S HOME, NOT ONCE, OR TWICE, BUT THREE TIMES, WITHOUT A WARRANT. UNHEARD OF RIGHT?. BUT THAT IS EXACTLY, WHAT HAS HAPPENED.  RARELY, IF AT ALL, DOES THIS CHARTER BREACH UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE CHARTER, HAPPENS TO THE SAME PERSON, MORE THAN ONCE AND BY THE SAME PERSONS. I HAVE YET TO COME ACROSS THIS KIND OF VIOLATION, IN ANY OTHER CASE LAWS, IN CANADA. THREE TIMES IN THREE DAYS, WITHOUT A WARRANT. THIS IS UNHEARD OF. WHICH MAKES THE STATEMENT OF THE LAWYER, JASON TAM, ALL THE MORE DISTURBING.  ANOTHER DISTURBING FACT, IS THAT THIS LAWYER, ALSO WORKS FOR THE VERY MINISTRY, THAT IS MANDATED TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS, OF VICTIMS. WHETHER THEY BE OF A CHARTER OF RIGHTS VIOLATION, OR NOT. CLEARLY, BY HIS STATEMENT, HE THINKS VERY LITTLE OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. WHICH ARE ALSO THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, OF ALL CANADIANS. 

SHOW ME, IF YOU CAN FIND SUCH A CASE, OF A CHARTER OF RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, THAT HAS HAPPENED TO A PERSON, THREE TIMES AND IN THE THE SPACE OF TWO DAYS, BY THE SAME PERSONS, WORKING FOR THE SAME AGENCY?. AND THEN CONTACT ME HERE, ON MY BLOG, TO POST IT.

TAM MADE THIS COMMENT, IN HIS SUBMISSIONS, TO THE ACRB TRIBUNAL MEMBER, ASHLEY DEATHE'S AFTER SHE HAD REQUESTED IN HER ORDER, THAT BOTH THE APPELLANT AND THE RESPONDENT, MAKE SUBMISSIONS, AS TO WHY THE HEARING SHOULD BE ADJOURNED?. SHE ALSO MADE IT CLEAR IN THE ORDER, THAT IT WAS HER INTENTION, TO DISMISSED THE APPELLANT'S APPEALS, AS BEING ABANDONED, AND ON THE ADVISED FROM THE LAWYER, JASON TAM, WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO, FORCED TO LEAVE THE THE HEARING. 

WITHOUT MAKING THIS LAWYER'S STATEMENTS, SOUND ANYMORE INCONSEQUENTIAL, I WILL LEAVE OFF COMMENTING, ANY FURTHER ON IT.

 

ACRB BOARD MEMBER AND LAWYER, ASHLEY DEATHE, HAS DONE IT AGAIN!. THIS TIME SHE HAS LIED, (WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU CALL IT?), IN HER ORDER, DATED APRIL 12, 2023, THAT, THE APPELLANT HAD LEFT THE HEARING, "BEFORE ANY EVIDENCE WAS CALLED". THIS WAS A BLATANT LIE, ON HER PART. WHEN IN FACT, SHE HAD CALLED THE FIRST WITNESS, RYAN WITHROW, TO TESTIFY AND TO GIVE EVIDENCE, AT THE HEARING. AND WHILE THE APPELLANT, WAS ALSO PRESENT AT THE HEARING.

ACRB BOARD MEMBER, ASHLEY DEATHE, HAS DONE IT AGAIN!. AND IT INVOLVES, HER PERSONAL CORRUPTION, WHICH MUST BE EXPOSED HERE. SO THAT THE PUBLIC AND THE REST OF THE WORLD, CAN KNOW EXACTLY WHAT GOES ON, IN THE CANADIAN COURTS AND TRIBUNALS.

ACRB TRIBUNAL MEMBER AND LAWYER, ASHLEY DEATHE'S CONDUCT, IS SO APPALLING, AND DISGUSTING, AND SHOWED SUCH A DISREGARD, FOR THE ADMINISTRATIION OF JUSTICE, THAT IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC, AS WELL AS TO PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT (ME,) IT MUST BE EXPOSED. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU LET THE MATTER PROCEED IN THE COURT, AS IT SHOULD.  HOWEVER, THERE ARE TIMES, WHEN IT IS ALSO NECESSARY, TO EXPOSED THE DEALINGS, OF THE COURT AND OFon THE ADJUDICATOR, OR THE JUDGE, WHO IS ALSO ADMINISTERING THE LAW, BECAUSE IT GOES SO MUCH AGAINST, THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST AND ALSO AGAINST, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND THE VICTIM'S RIGHTS.  This is what happens, when hearings are not recorded. You end up with a lack of procedural fairness and a disregard, for the administration of justice, by the adjudicator and the court or tribunal, that she represents. 

And this was not an oversight, by the Adjudicator, Ashley Deathe, but a deliberate show of an open bias, against the Appellant. We know that the tribunal has in the past, allowed the recording of its hearing, as in the case of, Pryde, Spottiswood and Pierce, where a court reporter, by the name Barbara Pollard, was allowed to transcribed the hearing. But the Member would not allow that in my case, hence the wordings of paragraph 3, of the order made on April 12, 2023.  I have so many grounds for an appeal, starting with a judicial review of her order, that I am not even going to elaborate too much on her actions, other than to exposed her more in this article.

WHAT DO YOU DO, WHEN A MEMBER OF A COURT, OR TRIBUNAL, ACTED TO BRING A DISREPUTE, TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE?. AS THIS TRIBUNAL MEMBER, ASHLEY DEATHE, HAS CURRENTLY DONE, IN HER ORDER?. WHAT WAS THE LIE?. This writer, has included, two paragraphs of the order, of April 12/23.

 I have posted below, two excerpts of the order, paragraphs 3 and 4. And the focus should also be, on the statement, at the end of paragraph 4. Where it has stated, in the order, "before any evidence was called".

 The public should be rest assured, concerning the statement, of the Adjudicator, in the order, since the Superior Court of Justice, Divisional court, now has a copy of the same order, of the Adjudicator Ashley Deathe, since the Appellant, has also filed a judicial review of the order, with the court, on April 20th.

 EXCERPTS OF THE ORDER, DATED APRIL 12, 2023, OF THE ACRB ADJUDICATOR, ASHLEY DEATHE.  (Paragraphs 3 and 4)

[3] The first scheduled hearing day was adjourned as the Board was not able to
attend.

[4] At the outset of the second hearing day, I denied the Appellant’s preliminary
motions which included a request to adjourn the hearing. After I provided my
ruling on the preliminary issues, the Appellant left the video conference hearing at
11:57 a.m. before any evidence was called. (this part of the order, is a lie. Evidence was called at the hearing and was given by the witness, AWS inspector, Ryan Withrow). 

The Appellant had left the hearing, during, and not before, the testimony and evidence, of the witness Ryan Withrow, after her repeated requests, made to the Adjudicator, Ashley Deathe, and from the onset of the hearing, which had started at 9:30 a.m. that the hearing be adjourned, so that it could also be recorded, since the appeal involved her Charter of Rights violations, under the Canadian Constitution, by the very same witness who was also testifying and giving evidence, at the hearing, inspector Ryan Withrow.  Who was one of two witnesses, that was scheduled to give evidence, at the hearing. The Member, Ashley Deathe, denied the requests, of the Appellant, as stated in paragraph 3 of the order. The requests were:

 1. To adjourned the hearing, so that the voir dire hearing, on the Constitutional Question, in her appeals, could also be heard first.

2. To adjourned the hearing, so that it could be audio recorded, or to be transcribed by a court reporter, (instead of just taking notes, as the Adjudicator had also suggested, at the hearing), so that a record of the hearing, would be available, in the event of an appeal of the hearing, by the Appellant.

3. To not have the witness testify and provide evidence, since the hearing was not being recorded and to adjourned the hearing, for that reason, in order to protect her constitutional rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 24(2) specifically, concerning any evidence of the witness, who was called by the Adjudicator, on April 6th to testify at the hearing. 

Part of the reasons given, by the Member, Ashley Deathe, for calling the witness, Ryan Withrow, to testify and to give evidence, according to her, was the fact that it was also the witness, inspector Ryan Withrow's, last day as an employee, of the Animal Welfare Service, which to the Appellant, was not enough grounds to have the hearing at all.  Or to have the witness to testify at the hearing. And especially, without the voir dire hearing first, and this hearing being recorded and becoming a part of the ACRB's tribunal record.

(The Adjudicator, Ashley Deathe, then chose to ignore, all of the Appellant's requests,  in which case the Appellant then left the hearing, at 11:57 a.m. before it was concluded). 

Her reasons for leaving the hearing:  There would be no recording of the hearing, that involved the violation, of her constitutional rights, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  And that the Constitutional Question, posed in her appeal and which also prevented such a hearing, in the first place, was also being ignored by the Adjudicator, Ashley Deathe, at the hearing. Basically, she was calling witnesses and ignoring section 24(1) and 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those were the foundation,s of the Canadian Constitution, and she was prepared to ignore it, in her corruption. The Appellant was having no more part in that hearing. She knew that court, now had to review the Adjudicator's actions, at the hearing. That was the role of the Divisional Court.

Did the ACRB Member and lawyer, Ashley Deathe, not know that when you called a witness to testify, that is the giving of evidence?. On top of whatever other evidence, he has also provided, during his time as a witness, under oath? Did Ashley Deathe, only pretended to not know this truth, or was she really that personally corrupt, as an adjudicator and someone who has been entrusted, with administering the law?.  That this witness was also called, at a hearing of the Appellant's appeals, before the Member had also had a voir dire hearing, of the Constitutional question, that was a part of the Appellant's appeal, before the Animal Care Review Board, and in regards to her Charter of Rights and Freedoms violation, along with the other inspectors involved. This Adjudicator was trying to be smart and shifty, concerning her decision in the order. She was really trying to circumvent, the Constitutional question, in the Appellant's appeal and specifically, under section 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which exempted the evidence of the witness, because of the section 8 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, violation of the witness, Ryan Withrow, which he has also never denied. That is, he , has never denied, entering into the Appellant's home, without a warrant. And neither has the other AWS inspectors along with him, on those three occasions without a warrant. On February 4th, 5th and February 6th.  P. C. Tong, badge # 2530, of the York Region Police, who assisted them on February 4th, also did not have a warrant either, to enter the Appellant's home. He not only took evidence during his time in the Appellant's home, but he also shared this evidence with the AWS inspectors. In fact, they had all set up a triage, on February 4th and corresponded among each other, but never bothered to get a warrant, not even a telewarant, to enter the Appellant's home. One of the AWS supervisors, James Boudreau, even authorized the inspectors, Ryan Withrow and Bailey Wintermute, who was with him, to enter the Appellant's home, before they had done so, according to the statement, of Bailey Wintermute. He did so under the critical distress section of the PAWS Act, they had claimed, which is still not a justification, not to get a warrant, even a telewarrant, as the case may be.  Was the animals also in any critical distress?. This is what Bailey Wintermute also said in his statement: "I saw multiple cats running to hide in the closet and under the bed, upon entry being made".  And, "I observed the cats to be bright, alert and responsive and generally in good health. None of the cats appeared to be showing any immediate signs of injury or illness".  That was on Feburary 6th.  He also mentioned that one of the cats, had bitten inspector Ryan Withrow, on his finger and that he himself was scratched on the arm, by several of the cats. Yet during the time of their illegal entry, into the Appellant's home without a warrant, one of the Appellant's cats, a six month old kitten, was lying at the foot of the bed, with a "crushed head" according to inspector Bailey Wintermute.  And several of the Appellant's other cats were also missing, the Appellant later found out. The Appellant has had in the past, the threats from the landlord, of her intentions to steal her cats. Which she had also claimed, "Would go missing one by one". And "You will see".  Unfortunately, she was also recorded, when making those threats. The problem does not stop there, since it was also because of the landlord's actions, that the Appellant, was not in her home, at the time of the involvement, of the animal welfare services inspectors. The Appellant was under a court order, which had prevented her, from being in her home at the time. Nevertheless, she had tried her best to make accommodations, for her animals and under the circumstances. She was able to get back into her home, to leave dry food and water for them, before the animal welfare inspectors, had become involved.  There is no question, in the view of the Appellant, that the actions of the police officer, Tong, was also premeditated, when he had also entered the Appellant's home and without a warrant, on February 4th. He knew beforehand, that he was going to attend the Appellant's home, but simply did not bother to get a warrant to do so.  Not only that, but the police has had a long history, of attending at the Appellant's home, because of the landlord and tenant situation, that the Appellant was going through at the time. In fact, the police was there at the Appellant's home, to assist the Appellant to get back into her home, and in order to take care of her animals, almost on a daily basis, since the landlord had changed the lock on the door and had refused to give the Appellant, a replacement key.  The Appellant has had to call the police, to assist her so regularly, that it would have also resulted, in dozens of calls to the police, over the same issue.  

Why did the Adjudicator, Ashley Deathe, also insisted on having a hearing, of the Appellant's appeals before the ACRB, that she also knew involved a question, that the law also required of her, to be addressed, and in a separate hearing? Why did this Member also insisted, that the hearings of the Appellant's appeals, also not be audio recorded, when this is also not an unusual request, for an Appellant to make, before the ACRB tribunal? (See the case of Pryde, Spottiswood and Pierce, that was also before the ACRB and how that hearing was also recorded, by a court reporter, Barbara Pollard, who had transcribed that hearing).

The problem with the hearing and with the witnesses called, to testify at the hearing, was that the  animal welfare inspectors, had entered the Appellant's home and without a warrant, on three separate occasions, and within the space of two days. Between, February 4th and February 6th. That is, on February 4th, 5th and 6th. Those three times.  Yet the also believed that this illegal entry, was also justified, all of those three times. How difficult was it to get a telewarrant, on the part of the inspectors? And on all three occasions?. That is a big question, to be answered by the Member, if she was also not so bias against the Appellant. But it will also certainly be a question, that will have to be answered by a judge, in order to protect the Appellant's inherent rights, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even if the case has to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. For which it qualifies as such, being both a case of public interest, because it is a case that involved a charter of rights violation and it may also be unprecedented, in regards to how many times, that charter of rights has been breach, in regards to the same person and how many times, during the same case. And when I am done in the Canadian courts, I will take the matter up further in the international courts. So this case is not ending any time soon.

SHOCKING!. LAWYER AND ACRB MEMBER, ASHLEY DEATHE"S , ATTACK, ON THE CONSTITUTION, THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, SECTION 8 AND SECTION 24(2) VIOLATIONS.

THE SHOCKING PROOF, OF HOW CANADA'S LAWS, ARE ACTUALLY TREATED, BY THE ADJUDICATORS, AT TRIBUNALS. ABSOLUTELY,  NO REGARD, FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, OR THE LAW. OR FOR PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, UNDER THE CHARTER.  

THIS LAWYER, ASHLEY DEATHE'S ACTIONS, BROUGHT A DISREPUTE TO THE, ADMINISTRATIONOF JUSTICE, NOT TO MENTIONED, A DISREGARD,FOR THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS, OF THE APPELLANT, WHEN SHE ALSO IGNORED THE CHARTER RIGHT VIOLATIONS, IN HER APPEAL.

The Charter Rights Violations, with the illegal entry into my home, on two occasions and also in the space of two days, by Animal Welfare Services inspectors, including, inspectors Ryan Withrow and Bailey Wintermute, included, those rights under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and under section 24(2), of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The latter violation of my Charter rights, involving the evidence taken, including electronic evidence, such as photographs or videos, with their cell phones or cameras), during their illegal entry into my home on those two occasions, without a warrant. This ACRB Member and lawyer, Ashley Deathe saw nothing wrong with their actions and disregarded my appeal at the ACRB, regarding the violations of my Charter rights, by those inspectors.

I WILL BE REQUESTING, A JUDICIAL REVIEW, FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT, REGARDING ANY DECISIONS, THAT SHE MAKES REGARDING, MY CHARTER RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS, THAT THIS LAWYER AND ACRB BOARD MEMBER, ASHLEY DEATHE, HAS DONE AT THE HEARING, OF THE CHARTER RIGHTS APPEAL.

  LAWYER, ASHLEY DEATHE

1. NO RECORDING, OF HER HEARINGS, AT THE ACRB, including, no audio recording, or court reporter, transcribing the hearing, ONLY, note taking, by her.  When she was asked by the Appellant, if the hearing was being recorded, she said, "NO".

Yet, the hearing, was to addressed, Constitutional issues, around the Charter of Rights violations, under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and also under section 24(2) of the charter.

2. She also denied the Appellant, the request to adjourned, the hearing of her appeals, on April 6th, so that her Charter of Rights application, could be heard first, at the ACRB, (A voir dire hearing), so that the evidence that was obtained, by the illegal entry into her home, without a warrant, TWICE, (in 48 hours), or twice in two days, by Animal Welfare Services, inspectors and also by the police (who accompanied them the first time, on February 4th. Neither the police, nor the animal services inspectors, did not even bother to get a telewarrant, much less the usual warrants) in her absence, could be heard separately from her appeal hearings, she said NO and went ahead with the hearing, despite what  that would mean, regarding the Appellant's rights, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ACRB Member, Ashley Deathe, did not view their actions, as an issue regarding my appeal, nor as a violation under the Charter, hence the reason why she went ahead,with the hearing of the appeal, without giving the Appellant the right to challenged their actions at the Board, or to seek a remedy from the Board, for those Charter violations. Encouraging her decision, was the corrupt government lawyer, Jason Tam.  Toronto Lawyer Jason Tam, makes more than a quarter million dollars a year, working for the government, yet he still showed absolutely no regards and even contempt, for Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the very Constitution, that he is suppose to protect.

3. Loud noises of children (apparently the Member, Ashley Deathe's own children), playing in the room, (it was a video conference hearing), at the time of the appeal hearing on April 5th, and also disrupting the hearing. Frequently shouting, yelling, crying or laughing, as the hearing took place. The Member, Ashley Deathe, HERSELF, adjourned the hearing, citing that she had an emergency, which may have also included her noisy children, playing in the background and apparently, at a hearing that was being conducted in her home. That is how "seriously", this member took a hearing of an appeal, that involved Constitutional issues, such as a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, violation, under sections 8 and 24 (2) of the Charter.

4. When the issue was brought up by the Appellant, at the hearing on April 5th, regarding having her Charter rights violations, addressed by the ACRB Tribunal or Board, including, for a remedy, the Member Ashley Deathe, said that she was not aware that the Board, had the jurisdiction to hear her appeal, regarding her Charter rights. I, the Appellant, told her then and there, that a Tribunal was considered as a "court of competent jurisdiction" to hear my appeals. She responded that she had to verify this and that was another reason for her adjourning the hearing, until April 6th.  On April 6th, after her conduct at the hearing, in insisting that the hearing continue, WITHOUT being recorded, I decided to look up this Member, Ashley Deathe online (and for the purpose of writing this article, also) and was shocked to learn that she was a lawyer.  She was so against the issues raised, about my Charter rights, INCLUDING, having a hearing about those Charter rights violations, that was NOT being recorded, no audio, or transcribing of  the hearing, much less a video (video recordings are not allowed, in any Canadian courts, the public can only rely on an audio recordings, of a hearing or trial) and also insisting that the hearing continue, without being recorded, either by audio, or by transcription, where no evidence of what was said and done at the hearing, would ever be heard, outside of that hearing room, or court.

This lawyer and ACRB Tribunal Member, Ashley Deathe, should know the importance of the so called ( I say so called, and it is such until proven otherwise, because of how some people, are robbed of the protection, of those very same guaranteed rights and freedoms. People like this writer and blogger), and guaranteed rights and freedoms, provided under the Canadian Constitution. How did this lawyer, Ashley Deathe, who is mandated by the Law Society of Upper Canada, to act in a manner, that would not interfered, with the administration of justice, then go ahead and acted to disregard it at the hearings that she presided over and to perverted the administration of justice, by her conduct?. Do you think that it was reasonable, for her to have a hearing that involved a Charter of Rights violations, especially under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to NOT have that hearing itself recorded?. And to say so to that fact?. Is that not a further violation, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to have a hearing that is not fair?. How could it be a fair hearing, involving Charter issues, when all that the Appellant has, are the notes of the Member, or to write down her own notes of the hearing, which would not hold up in court.  Neither her notes, nor the Member's notes of the hearing, should an appeal court wanted to hear, what was said and done at such a hearing, would also be accepted, by the court. It is not evidence gathering, that I am talking here, but a part of the procedure.

 

 

Read more about this matter in my next article, which I will also give more details about. 

I will also be exposing the corrupt lawyer and counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General, and the Animal Welfare Services, Jason Tam, a lawyer whose salary is almost three hundred thousand dollars, per year and I will show you how undeserving he is of even working as counsel, on behalf of the government, since he has NO REGARDS, for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, himself. Or of the Constitution of Canada, which governs those rights. You can look at it as his own personal corruption, or as a representative, of the Canadian government, which does not enforced its own laws, that are a part of its own Constitution.