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.
