HOW THE JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, CORRUPT DECISION, ON OCTOBER 13, 2023, HAS ADVERSELY, AFFECTED MY CASE, BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COURT.
 |
| ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT JUDGE SANDRA NISHIKAWA |
WHAT ARE AT STAKE, ARE MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND MY FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS. SHE REGARDED NEITHER ONE, IN REGARDS TO HER ACTIONS.
A SUMMARY OF WHAT TOOK PLACE AT THE HEARING.
ON OCTOBER 13, 2023, I HAD A HEARING, BEFORE THIS JUDGE, ON MY URGENT MOTION, FOR A STAY, OF THE ORDER THAT WAS MADE, BY THE ACRB, OR THE ANIMAL CARE REVIEW BOARD, ON AUGUST 4, 2023, WHICH DID NOT HAVE A HEARING, ON MY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION APPLICATION, THAT I HAD FILED WITH THE BOARD, INVOLVING, MY THREE APPEALS, THAT WERE BEFORE THE BOARD. THE BOARD ALSO MADE A DECISION IN THE ORDER, FOR A PAYMENT OF COSTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $23, 969.00, IN THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, REGARDING THE SHELTER CARE, OF MY ANIMALS, WHILE IN THE CARE OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE SERVICES. AND FOR THE PAYMENT TO BE MADE, WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE ORDER MADE, ON AUGUST 4TH, OR ELSE THE ANIMALS, WOULD ALSO BE FORFEITED TO THE CROWN. ON AUGUST 14, 2023, I FILED AN APPEAL, WITH THE DIVISIONAL COURT, OF THE ORDER MADE, WHICH WAS WITHIN THE TEN DAYS, STIPULATED IN THE ORDER. THE DIVISIONAL COURT, THEN DENIED THE APPEAL AND ADVISED ME TO CONVERT THE APPEAL TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, WHICH I DID. THE DIVISIONAL COURT, THEN SET A DATE FOR OCTOBER 13, 2023, FOR THE HEARING OF THE URGENT MOTIION, THAT I HAD ALSO FILED, TO GO WITH MY JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, SINCE THERE WAS NO AUTOMATIC STAY OF THE ORDER, UNDER SECTION 25(1), OF THE STATUTORY POWERS PROCEDURE ACT, INVOLVING, THE DECISION OF THE BOARD. EVEN THOUGH, UNDER THE LAW, IT IS AN AUTHOMATIC STAY, OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD, OR TRIBUNAL, WHEN A DECISION OF A BOARD, INVOLVED, THE PAYMENT OF MONEY. BECAUSE I WAS DENIED THE RIGHT, TO APPEAL THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, AND WHICH WOULD HAVE ALSO ALLOWED ME, THE AUTOMATIC STAY OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, I THEN FILED A MOTION FOR A STAY, IN ORDER TO STAY THE DECISION OF THE BOARD, UNTIL THE HEARING OF MY JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COURT.
ON OCTBER 13, 2023, AFTER THE RESPONDENT'S LAWYERS, JASON TAM AND DOUGLAS LEE, MADE THEIR ARGUMENT, THAT THE MOTION FOR A STAY, SHOULD BE DENIED, BASED ON THE STATUTORY LIMITATIONS, OF THE ORDER OF TEN DAYS, THIS JUDGE THEN MADE HER DECISION, TO DENY THE MOTION FOR A STAY, THAT FILED WITH THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, AND IN EFFECT, ENDED THE CASE, BEFORE IT COULD THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, COULD BE HEARD, BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT. WHICH, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS FILED, WITHIN THE TIME GRANTED BY THE COURT, THERE HAS YET, TO BE A DATE SET FOR THE HEARING, OF THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, THAT WAS ALSO FILED AS URGENT, BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COURT.
THIS SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED, THE MOTION FOR A STAY AND ENDED MY CASE, BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COURT, BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION. WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE, IS THE FACT THAT, THE DIVISIONAL COURT'S, PANEL OF JUDGES, HAS NOW BEEN DENIED THE RIGHT, TO HEAR THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, OF THE BOARD'S DECISION AND TO REVIEW, THE DECISION OF THE BOARD, INVOLVING, MY CASE. THIS SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGE, NISHIKAWA, HAS IN EFFECT, MADE THAT DECISION, FOR THE PANEL OF JUDGES, BY DENYING THE MOTION FOR A STAY, WHICH THEN ALLOWS THE BOARD'S DECISION TO STAND.
WHAT THIS JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, WAS THE FACT THAT THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL COURT, WAS ALSO BASED, ON A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE BOARD, DID NOT HEAR MY CONSTTUTIONAL APPLICATION, BEFORE THE HEARING, OF THE APPEALS, AND HAD BASED IT'S DECISION, ON EVIDENCE THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENTS, AT THE HEARING, WHICH SHOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN ECLUDED, FROM THE HEARING, UNDER SECTION 24(2) OF THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND ALSO UNDER, SECTION 52(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION. WHICH ALSO RENDERS IN EFFECT, ANY LAWS THAT WAS INCONSISTENT, WITH SECTION 52(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE OTHER IMPORTANT FACTOR, WAS ALSO THE COST MADE IN THE DECISION OF THE BOARD, IN REGARDS TO THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $23, 969.00, WHICH THE SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, ALSO PREVENTED, THE DIVISIONAL COURT'S PANEL OF JUDGES, THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT DECISION MADE ON THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, IN THE ORDER OF THE BOARD. SHE ALSO DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, THAT I HAD ALSO APPEALED, THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, WITHIN THE TEN DAYS OF THE ORDER BEING MADE ON AUGUST 4, 2023, IN WHICH I HAD ALSO APPEALED, ON AUGUST 14, 2023. ALBEIT, THAT THE APPEAL WAS CONVERTED, TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, ON THE ORDER OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, BY THE JUDGE, WENDY MATHESON.
BY NOT ALLOWING THE MOTION FOR A STAY, OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, SO THAT THE DIVISIONAL COURT, COULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, TO REVIEW THE BOARD'S DECISION, REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW, SHE HAS IN EFFECT, DENIED THE COURT, THE OPPORTUNITY TO MADE A DECISION, ON THE ORDER OF THE BOARD. THE DECISION, THAT SHE HAS MADE ON OCTOBER 13, 2023, TO DENY THE MOTION FOR A STAY, OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, UNTIL THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, COULD BE HEARD BY THE COURT, IN EFFECT, ALLOWS THE BOARD'S DECISION TO STAND, BEFORE THAT THE DIVISIONAL COURT, HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE BOARD'S DECISION. SHE ALSO CLAIMED, IN HER DECISION, THAT THERE I HAD NOT PROVEN, THAT THERE WAS ANY HARM, TO BE SUFFERED BY ME, AND THAT I HAD ALSO NOT PROVEN, THAT THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE, PROVIDES FOR THE GRANTING OF THE STAY. SHE ALSO SKIPPED THE FIRST PART OF THE TEST, FOR THE GRANTING OF THE STAY, WHICH WAS THAT THERE WAS A SERIOUS ISSUE TO BE TRIED, WHICH IN THIS CASE, WAS THE HEARING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, REGARDING THE BOARD'S DECISON, NOT TO HAVE A VOIR DIRE HEARING, OF MY THREE APPEALS, ON MY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION APPLICATION, THAT WAS ALSO FILED, WITH THE ACRB.
THE DECISION, OF THE SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO, IS ALSO UNDER APPEAL.
THIS JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, IN TORONTO, IS PART OF THE BIGGER CONSPIRACY, OF THE DIVISONAL COURT'S JUDGES, TO DELIBERATELY, DENY ME MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BEFORE THAT COURT. MY RIGHTS UNDER THE CHARTER, TO THE EQUAL BENEFIT AND PROTECTION OF THE LAW, DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM, IN REGARDS TO ANY DECISIONS, THAT THEY MAKE, IN REGARDS TO MY CASES, BEFORE THAT COURT. FOR INSTANCE, ALL OF MY URGENT MOTIONS AND APPLICATIONS, THAT WERE FILED IN THE DIVISIONAL COURT, WERE GIVEN DATES FOR HEARINGS, AT A LATER TIME, THAN WOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED, AS PROTECTING MY RIGHTS, UNDER THE LAW. SUCH AS THE OCTOBER 13TH DATE, FOR THE HEARING OF THE URGENT MOTION FOR A STAY, THAT WAS GIVEN WELL BEYOND WHAT WOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS NORMAL, FOR SUCH AN URGENT MOTION. I HAVE ALSO YET TO BE PROVIDED WITH A DATE, BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT, FOR THE HEARING OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, THAT WAS ALSO FILED AS URGENT, BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT. MY BELIEF, IS THAT THEY HAD EXPECTED, THE MOTION FOR A STAY, TO BE DENIED, SO WHY BOTHER PROVIDING A DATE, FOR THE HEARING, OF THE URGENT JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, SINCE THIS WAS ALSO A PART OF THE OVERALL CORRUPTION, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT'S ACTIONS, AGAINST ME.
AND EVEN IN THE DECISION, THAT WAS MADE ON OCTOBER 16, 2023, BY THE SINGLE JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, THAT ORDER WAS NOT SENT OUT TO ME, BY THE REGISTRAR, TASHEKAH GENTLES, OR BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR SAURABH BAWEJA, EVEN THOUGH THE COURT, HAD TAKEN THE TIME, TO SEND THE ORDER, OUT TO THE RESPONDENTS, BUT NOT TO ME. I HAD TO ASKED THE COURT FOR THE ORDER, THAT WAS ALSO SENT TO THE OTHER PARTIES, BUT NOT TO ME. MY REQUEST WAS ALSO IGNORED BY THE COURT AND BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SAURABH, BAWEJA, UNTIL I MADE IT CLEAR TO HIM, THAT I WAS GOING TO HAVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, LOOKED INTO THE MATTER, AS WELL AS THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, IN REGARDS TO THE SERVICES, THAT I HAD NOT RECIEVED, FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, OF THE COURT, PERTAINING TO THE ORDER, THAT WAS BEING WITHHELD BY THE COURT STAFF. THE ORDER WAS THEN PROMTLY SENT TO ME, BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SAURABH BAWEJA.
ALSO, IMPLICATED IN THIS CONSPIRACY, TO PERVERT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, WAS ALSO THE JUDGES OF THE DIVIDIONAL COURT, JUDGE WENDY MATHESON AND SEAN OBRIEN. THEY BOTH KNEW, THAT A JUDICIAL EVIEW APPLICATION, WAS NOT A RIGHT, BUT WAS DISCRETIONARY, UNLIKE AN APPEAL AND HAD BOTH INSISTED, THAT I FILED A JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, INSTEAD OF AN APPEAL, OF THE BOARD'S DECISION. THEY ALSO KNEW, I BELIEVED, THAT THE MOTION FOR A STAY, OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, WOULD ALSO BE DENIED, AS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY, OF THAT COURT AGAINST ME. IT WAS A DELAY TACTIC, ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE, WENDY MATHESON, IN ALLOWING THE COURT, TO PROVIDE ME WITH A DATE, FOR OCTOBER 13TH, FOR THE HEARING OF MOTION FOR A STAY, RATHER THAN FOR THE COURT, TO PROVIDE ME WITH AN EARLIER DATE. NONE OF THOSE SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGES, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, ALSO CONSIDERED, THE FACT, THAT I HAD ORIGINALLY FILED THE APPEAL, OF THE BOARD'S DECISION, ON AUGUST 14TH, AND WITHIN THE DAYS, AS STIPULATED IN THE ORDER OF THE BOARD AND ALSO UNDER THE STATUE. IT WAS THE DIVISIONAL COURT, WHICH HAD CONVERTED THE APPEAL, TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION, IN WHICH CASE, THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, WITH THE DIVISIONAL COURT, ON AUGUST 14TH, SHOULD HAVE STILL STAND, BUT WHICH THE SINGLE MOTIONS JUDGE, SANDRA NISHIKAWA, ALSO DISMISSED, IN HER ORDER, ON OCTOBER 16, 2023.
