SHOCKING!! JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SANDRA LOPES DAMOTA. LOOK WHAT SHE HAS ...

WHEN A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, LIKE SANDRA L. DAMOTA, SAYS THAT SHE IS BUSY, WITH THE JP'S OFFICE, FULL OF EMPTY CHAIRS, THIS SHOULD ALSO BE, REGARDED, AS BRINGING, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, TO DISREPUTE.

ONTARIO, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SANDRA LOPES, VIERA DAMOTA, A FORMER SOCIAL WORKER, NOW TURNED JUSTICE IF THE PEACE AND HER ACTIONS, IN THE OFFICE, OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, AT THE BRAMPTION COURTHOUSE, IN PEEL REGION.  THIS CORRUPT JP, CLAIMED THAT SHE WAS BUSY, DESPITE ALL OF THE EMPTY CHAIRS, IN THE OFFICE. 

EMPTY CHAIRS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, IN THE BRAMPTON COURT LOCATION, PROVED, THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SANDRA L. DAMOTA, WAS NOT REALLY BUSY.  THE ROOM WAS EMPTY OF PEOPLE, EXCEPT FOR ONE PERSON, ME. 

I HAD TO REPORT THIS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND TO ALSO PROVED, THAT I AM ALSO, TREATED DIFFERENTLY, IN THE CANADIAN COURT.  IT WAS MY PRIVATE INFORMATION, THAT THE JP, SANDRA DAMOTA, DID NOT WANT TO BOTHER, ACCEPTING, AFTER HAVING ME WAITING, FOR ABOUT HALF AN HOUR, AFTER THE INFORMATION, WAS ALSO GIVEN TO HER. AND ME ALSO BELIEVING, THAT SHE WAS GOING TO NOW CALL ME, INTO THE PRIVATE OFFICE AND TO FIND OUT MORE, ABOUT THE INFORMATION.  INSTEAD, SHE TOLD THE CLERK, TO TELL ME, THAT SHE WAS BUSY AND THE CLERK THEN ADVISED ME, TO COME BACK ANOTHER DAY, TO LAY THE PRIVATE INFORMATION.  

AND AS YOU CAN ALSO SEE FROM THE EMPTY CHAIRS IN THE JP'S OFFICE, SHE WAS NOT BUSY, AT ALL.  SHE JUST DID NOT WANT TO BOTHER SERVING ME, AND ENDED UP, DENYING ME THE SERVICE, TO WHICH I WAS ALSO ENTITLED.

 

Today, I was at the Justice of the Peace office, in Brampton, Ontario. I wanted to lay some private information (charges) and after sitting in the general area for about 30 minutes or more and waited to be called in to see the JP, Sandra Lopes Damota, after the clerk had taken my information to her, earlier, she told the clerk in the office, of the Justice of the Peace Office, in the Brampton court, that she was not going to see me, because she was too busy. What!. No other person was in the office of the Justice of the Peace, except myself. The clerk tried to explain, that even though, the Justice of the Peace Office, was empty of people, that they were still busy doing "electronic work", in the office. I didn't buy it. So when she stepped away from the front counter, I decided to record the Justice of the Peace Office, to show that the place was empty of people. And to prove that the JP, Sandra Lopes Damota, was also acting corruptly. Not knowing, that her actions, would also be exposed, such as her bias against me. Why did she claim that she was busy and also obviously lied, since the place was empty?. It may have to do with the fact, that I was at the JP's office, the day before and the previous JP, Sean Michael McKenna, had my private information before him and would also not proceed with laying the information. This was because, when he had mentioned to me, in the private office of the Justice of the Peace, that he had to established, the prima facie evidence of the case, I had to stop him right there and told him, that he could not do that.That he was not the crown attorney, whose job it was to do that. He was not happy with my response and did not accept the information. But not before I also told him, that I was going to order the transcript, of the hearing before him, in the private office. For the purpose of my complaint, with the Judicial Council against him. I kid you not, he wanted to hear full evidence and to established, the prima facie evidence, of the charges, that I wanted to lay, as a private information. I was not having it. While the JP does require some information, relating to the charge, he is definitely not required, to prove any prima facie, evidence, before accepting the information. Just the minimal amount of information, that is required, to lay the private information. So fast forward to today, when I went back to see a different Justice of the Peace, in the Brampton court and I had this encounter, with the JP, Sandra Lopes Damota. She never came out of her office and relayed the information to the clerk, who was also smiling, as if it was all too funny. I asked the clerk why the JP would also say that she was busy, when the office was completely empty. The clerk said that they had, "electronic work", to do in the office and could not accommodate me, as the JP, had also told her. I had to record this in the interest of the public. While I was in the office of the Justice of the Peace, two other persons walked in and now I am wondering, if they had also accommodated her, after I had left the office of the justice of the peace. I am sure that they did.

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SEAN MICHAEL MCKENNA, AND HIS STATEMENT, THAT HE HAD TO "ESTABLISHED THE PRIMA FACIE" EVIDENCE, BEFORE ACCEPTING, THE PRIVATE INFORMATION.

 SHOCKING YES!. BUT THIS WAS ACTUALLY, THE STATEMENT, OF AN ONTARIO JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SEAN MICHAEL MCKENNA, WHO HAD MADE THIS, DISTURBING COMMENT, WHILE HE WAS ACTING, AS A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, IN THE LAYING OF A PRIVATE INFORMATION, AT THE BRAMPTON COURTHOUSE, IN BRAMPTON, ONTARIO. 

THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, SEAN MCKENNA, WANTED TO CONDUCT, A FACT FINDING HEARING, AND SAID SO. HE SAID THAT HE HAD TO ESTABLISHED, THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE, BEFORE ACCEPTING, THE PRIVATE INFORMATION. 

WHEN HE WAS INFORMED, THAT THIS WAS THE ROLE, OF A CROWN ATTORNEY AND NOT A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, WHO WAS SITTING IN THE OFFICE, OF A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, WHOSE ROLE WAS TO ACCEPT, THE PRIVATE INFORMATION, THIS DID NOT SIT TOO WELL, WITH THE SAID, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.

HE IS BEING EXPOSED HERE, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC, GENERALLY, DO NOT KNOW, WHAT IS BEING SAID, OR DONE, IN THE OFFICE OF, THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. THAT SOME OF THE JPS, WHO ARE COMPETENT AT THE LAW, (MAYBE), WILL ALSO TRY TO ABUSE THAT AUTHORITY AND THAT OTHER JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, (SUCH AS SANDRA DAMOTA, ANOTHER JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, IN THE ONTARIO COURTS), MAY NOT BE SO MUCH SO. AT LEAST NOT BY JUDGING OF HER CONDUCT. BOTH OF THOSE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, WORKED AT THE BRAMPTON JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OFFICE, ALTHOUGH, JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, ARE ALSO KNOWN TO WORK AT DIFFERENT, COURT HOUSES, IN ONTARIO. IN ROTATING SHITS, SUCH AS ONE WEEK AT THIS COURTHOUSE AND THEN MOVED TO ANOTHER COURTHOSE. 

SERVICES AND HOUSING IN THE PROVINCE, OR SHIP, CEO LESLEY NAGADO AND CFO, THOMAS DICARLO, ARE FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES, FOR DISOBEYING AN ORDER OF THE COURT AND FOR BREACH OF TRUST AND CORRUPTION.

SHIP CEO AND BOARD MEMBER, LESLEY NAGADO, IS FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES, FOR CORRUPTION, CONSPIRACY, BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST AND FOR DISOBEYING AN ORDER OF THE COURT.

ALSO FACING THE SAME CHARGES, IS SHIP'S CFO, THOMAS DICARLO, WHO AS THE CFO, HE AND LESLEY NEGADO, HAD DECIDED, TO USE THEIR POSITIONS, TO CARRY OUT REPRISAL ACTIONS, AGAINST THE RESIDENT AND TO DISOBEY THE COURT ORDER, IN THE EVICTION OF THE RESIDENT FROM THE SHELTER, AS AN ACT OF REPRISAL, DESPITE BEING SERVED WITH THE ORDER FROM THE COURT,  AND WHILE THE MATTER, WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT AND TO BE DECIDED, BY THE COURT.  

Lesley Nagado, CEO of SHIP

Services and Housing in the Province

and her personal corruption. She is facing criminal 

charges, for breach of public trust, conspiracy, disobeying an order

of the court and corruption. 

THE CEO AND BOARD MEMBER, FOR THE ORGANIZATION, SERVICES IN THE PROVINCEOR SHIP, LESLEY NAGODA AND THOMAS DICARLO, THE CFO, OF SHIP, ARE BOTH FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES, FOR CORRUPTION, BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST AND DISOBEYING, AN ORDER OF THE COURT.  

THIS IS IN RELATION, TO A COURT ORDER, THAT WAS MADE LAST WEEK, ON MARCH 28, 2024, DIRECTING SERVICES UPON SHIP, THE ORGANIZATION, THAT THEY ALSO OVERSEES. THE ORDER WAS BASED ON AN EX-PARTE MOTION, THAT WAS FILED BY THE RESIDENT, TO PREVENT THEM FROM EVICTING HER FROM THE SHELTER, IN AN ACT OF REPRISAL AND FOR TAKING LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST THEM, FOR CHARTER RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, WHEN THEY AUTHORIZED, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH, OF THE RESIDENT'S PERSONAL PROPERTY, REGULARLY, AS PART OF THEIR PRACTICES, AT THE SHELTER.

Both Lesley Nagoda and Thomas Dicarlo, decided that in giving the staff of the shelter, the directives, to evict the resident, which they have set for April 4, 2024, they can therefore act above the court, which says in the order, for them to be served with the resident's motion document, since it was an ex-parte motion, before the court would hear the resident's motion, about the impending eviction. 

They will now both have the opportunity, to stand before the court and to answer for their actions, regarding the order.  As well for the other charges, that have been made against them.

Also to be put on official notification, about these two persons, Lesley Nagado and Thomas Dicarlo, are the funders for SHIP. And what they also plan to do, about their corrupt actions. If they would continue to fund SHIP, with both of them managing the organization, or to cut their funding, based on their actions and also how they run the organization.

SYSTEMATIC RACISM, IS PRACTICED, IN THE CANADIAN COURTS. I AM EXPOSING, AN ONTARIO JUDGE, GRANT DOW, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IN TORONTO, WHO IS A CANADIAN JUDGE, THAT PRACTICES RACISM, GAINST BLACKS.

I AM DECLARING, THAT THIS TORONTO JUDGE, GRANT DOW, IS A RACIST AND PRACTICES, SYSTEMATIC RACISM, IN THE CANADIAN COURT, AGAINST BLACKS. 

I AM A BLACK WOMAN AND IT IS MY DUTY, TO EXPOSE, SYSTEMATIC RACISM, AGAINST BLACKS, THAT IS PRACTICED, IN THE CANADIAN COURTS, BY SOME , IF NOT BY MOST JUDGES.  JUDGES LIKE THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE JUDGE, GRANT DOW.  

IN ORDER TO ERADICATE, THIS FORM OF DISCRIMINATION, IT IS ALSO NECESSARY, TO EXPOSED, THE PERPETRATORS OF IT. HENCE, I AM EXPOSING, JUDGE GRANT DOW, OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IN TORONTO, WHO IS A RACIST.

TORONTO JUDGE, GRANT DOW,
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE IN TORONTO

I  AM CONVINCED, THAT HAD I BEEN A WHITE WOMAN, WHOSE CASE WAS ALSO BEFORE THIS JUDGE, HE WOULD HAVE ALSO, ACTED DIFFERENTLY.

AND IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, IF A JUDGE PRACTICES, SYSTEMATIC RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION, HE ALSO BRINGS, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, INTO DISREPUTE. THEY GO TOGETHER. 

AND WHEN THAT IS ALSO MINGLED, WITH HIS OWN PERSONAL BIAS, THAT OFTEN SHOWS UP, WITH HIS CORRUPT PRACTICES, THEN THIS IS OFTEN THE RESULT. AN ORDER THAT IS VAGUE AND HAD OTHER OBJECTIVES, SINCE HE DID NOT COME RIGHT OUT AND DISMISSED, THE URGENT MOTION, BUT TO SKIRT AROUND THE ISSUE, TO THE POINT OF TRIVIALIZING, THE URGENCY OF THE MOTION. HERE IS WHAT HE HAD SAID, IN THE ENDORSEMENT, THAT HE HAS MADE, REGARDING MY URGENT MOTION, FOR THE MANDATORY ORDER, OR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION. 

[1] "THE MATTER WAS DIRECTED TO ME BY THE URGENT MOTIONS OFFICE.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT NOR ANY REASON GIVEN FOR PROCEEDING WITH OUT GIVING NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT (ASIDE FROM URGENCY)". 

 (Notice how he also downplayed the, urgency, of the situation, by his statement and also actions). This is also one of the key factors, in coming to terms, with a judge, like Grant Dow, who have acted bias, or has discriminated, against the person, in other so called "protected" areas of the law, such as racism and discrimination, based on other factors.

[2] "MS GUILLAUME SEEKS INTERIM INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO PREVENT THE RESPONDENT FROM EVICTING HER FROM THEIR TEMPORARY SHELTER, [...] WHILE SHE SEARCHES FOR ALETERNATIVE SHELTER".

[3] "AS A RESULT, I DECLINE TO MAKE THE ORDER REQUESTED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO IT BEING RENEWED FOLLOWING SERVICE OF THIS APPLICATION".

[4] "I URGE MS GUILLAUME TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE.  FURTHER, MAY I SUGGEST SHE CONSIDER EITHER REISSUING HER CLAM AT THE BRAMPTON OFFICE OF THIS COURT LOCATED AT 7755 HURONTARIO STREET, MISSISSAUGA (OR REQUEST THAT IT BEE TRANSFERRED THERE) AS IT APPEARS BOTH PARTIES ARE LOCATED CLOSER TO THAT OFFICE AND WITHIN THAT JUDICIAL REGION". 

End of the Endorsement.

NOTICE HOW THIS RACIST JUDGE, SHOWED, HOW HE ALSO CARED, VERY LITTLE, IF THE MOVING PARTY (THIS BLACK WOMAN), ALSO SUFFERS ANY FURTHER HARM, IF SHE WAS EVICTED FROM THE SHELTER, AND HOW HE ALSO SKIRTED AROUND THE ISSUE, BY TELLING HER TO REQUEST, THAT THE CASE ALSO  BE TRANSFERRED, TO ANOTHER REGION, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, DID NOT COME OUT AND SAY, THAT HE WAS DISMISSING, HER URGENT MOTION.  (RATHER, BY DIRECTING, THAT SHE SERVED, THE EX-PARTE MOTION, ON THE RESPONDENT). AND IN WHICH CASE, HE WOULD HAVE ALSO, HAD TO PROVIDE HIS REASONS, FOR DOING SO. REGARDLESS, HE IS MANDATED, TO PROVIDE REASONS, FOR HIS DECISION. WHICH HE ALSO DID NOT DO, IN THIS CASE. 

A JUDGE, IS MANDATED, TO ACT, ETHICALLY AND MORALLY AND TO CONSIDER, NOT ONLY THE LAW, WHEN DEALING WITH CASES, BUT ALSO TO CONSIDER, THE IMPACT OF THE DECISION, ON THE PERSON, BEFORE THE COURT.  THIS HAS TO DO WITH PROTECTING, THEIR SO CALLED, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,  SUCH AS THOSE "GUARANTEED RIGHTS", UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, AS WELL AS IN REGARDS TO, PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS. WHICH MUST ALSO BE BASED, ON A JUDGE, WHO ACTS OBJECTIVELY, AND WHOSE OPINIONS AND ACTIONS, SHOULD ALSO BE FREE FROM HIS OWN, PERSONAL BIAS AND OTHER INJUSTICES.  THAT ALSO MEANS, THAT THE HEARING, HAS TO BE A FAIR ONE.  A LACK OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND HENCE A LACK OF NATURAL JUSTICE, IS AN ERROR OF LAW. WHICH IS ALSO GROUNDS, TO HAVE A JUDGE'S DECISION, SET ASIDE AND HIS ACTIONS, LOOKED INTO FURTHER, TO SEE IF IT GOES ANY DEEPER, THAN THAT.  (SUCH AS AN ACTION BY THE JUDGE, OR COURT, THAT WOULD ALSO SHOW, THE INJUSTICE OF, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, THAT WAS ALSO METED OUT BY THE JUDGE, IN THIS CASE).  TO PROTECT THE LITIGANT RIGHTS AND ALSO TO PROTECT, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, BY THE COURT.  WHICH THE CANADIAN COURTS, DO NOT PRACTICE, OR IMPLEMENTS, IN MY CASE.

THIS TORONTO JUDGE, GRANT DOW, ALSO GAVE NO REASONS, FOR HIS DECISION, OTHER THAN TO MAKE, THE ENDORSEMENT. JUDGES ARE ALSO MANDATED, TO GIVE REASONS, OTHERWISE, THE HEARING OF THE CASE, WOULD ALSO LACK PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.  IN MY MATTER, THE JUDGE MADE A ONE PAGE, ENDORSEMENT, THAT WAS ALSO DELIBERATELY, WORDED, TO BE AMIBIGIOUS AND EVEN MORE SO, WITHOUT HIS REASONS.  AT FIRST GLANCE, IT APPEARS TO BE CLEAR, BUT WHEN YOU REALIZED, THAT HE HAD REQUIRED, THAT SERVICE BE MADE, UPON THE RESPONDENT, BEFORE THE COURT WOULD, ALSO HEAR THE CASE, YOU REALIZED ALSO, THAT THE CASE WAS, NOT CONCLUDED. (AS THE RESPONDENT, IS ALSO, CURRENTLY, TREATING THE MATTER). IF IT WAS ENDED, THE MOVING PARTY, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TOLD, TO SERVE THE OTHER PARTY, WITH HER URGENT MOTION DOCUMENTS, WHERE THE COURT WOULD ALSO HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES, AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE, MOTION DOCUMENTS, WERE ALSO FILED WITH THE COURT.  THAT IS WHAT USUSALLY HAPPENS, IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS.  THE MATTER IS SUPPOSE TO CONTINUE, AFTER THE RESPONDENT, IS SERVED, WITH THE MOVING PARTY'S MOTION, THAT WAS FILED AS AN EX-PARTE MOTION.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS A MATTER THAT WAS INTENDED, FOR THE COURT TO HEAR LATER ON, AFTER SERVICE WAS MADE AND TO DECIDE ON THE ISSUES, BASED ON THE MERITS.

AS TO THE JUDGE, GRANT DOW, INSTEAD OF HEARING, THE URGENT MOTION, THAT WAS SITTING ON HIS DESK, THAT HE HAD DELAYED, THE ENTIRE DAY AND EVEN BEYOND THAT DAY, TO THE NEXT DAY,  AND WORSE, TELLING THE LITIGANT, TO TRANSFER HER URGENT MOTION, TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION, WHICH WOULD ALSO DELAY IT FURTHER, SINCE HE HIMSELF, WOULD ALSO NOT HEAR, THE URGENT MOTION, AS AN EXPARTE MOTION, WAS HIS EXCUSE. HE COULD HAVE ALSO MADE,  A MORE "JUST" DECISION.  ONE THAT TOOK INTO FACTOR, THE HARM THAT  THE MOVING PARTY, WOULD ALSO SUFFER, IF HER MATTER WAS DELAYED, INDEFINITELY, AS HIS ENDORSEMENT, ALSO INDICATED, SINCE HE ALSO LEFT IT UP TO HER, IN HIS ENDORSEMENT, TO DECIDE ON HOW, SHE WAS GOING TO ACT UPON THE ORDER MADE.  NO WONDER HE ALSO INCLUDED IN HIS STATEMENTS, IN THE SAID ENDORSEMENT, "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", WHICH COULD ALSO HAVE A DOUBLE MEANING.  ON THE ONE HAND, IT COULD MEAN THAT HE WAS JUST PROTECTING, HIS STATEMENT AND HIMSELF.  AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THE "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", COULD ALSO MEAN, THAT THE LITIGATION, WAS CLEARLY NOT OVER.   AND THAT IT WAS ALSO INTENDED, TO "PRESERVED, THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES", UNTIL THE COURT HEARS THEIR MOTIONS, AT A LATER TIME. THIS PRECEDENT, WAS MADE BY ANOTHER JUDGE, JUSTIE PRICE, ON HIS VIEW, OF WHAT AN ORDER, (OR ENDORSEMENT, FROM A JUDGE), USING THE TERM, "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", IN HIS ORDER, MEANS LEGALLY.   IN THAT REGARD, IT WAS A "PROTECTIVE CLAUSE" INSERTED INTO THE ORDER, TO PROTECT BOTH PARTIES. IT WAS ALSO INTENDED, TO HAVE TEMPORARY POWERS, IN PROTECTING THE EACH PARTY'S POSITION, UNTIL THEIR MOTIONS, CAN BE HEARD BY THE COURT, AFTER SERVICE WAS MADE.  AND ON THE OTHER HAND, IF USED OUTSIDE OF AN ORDER, IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT WHAT WAS SAID, SHOULD NOT BE USED, LATER ON IN THE COURT. AND THEREBY PROTECTING THE ISSUER OF THAT STATEMENT.  

I LEAVE IT UP TO THE LEGAL MINDS (WHO ALSO READ MY BLOG), TO DETERMINE WHAT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE, GRANT DOW, ALSO MEANT, BY INSERTING THE PHRASE, "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", IN HIS ENDORSEMENT, PERTAINING TO MY CASE.

THE KIND OF ENDORSEMENT, THAT THE JUDGE HAD MADE, IS NOT THE USUAL PRACTICE OF THE COURT.  MOTIONS EITHER GETS DISMISSED, OR ABANDONED, IN THE COURT.  NOT LEFT IN LIMBO, LIKE THE ONE THAT THIS JUDGE, GRANT DOW, HAS MADE, HIS ENDORSEMENT ABOUT. ON THE ONE HAND, TO SERVE THE RESPONDENT AND ON THE OTHER HAND, TO REISSUE IT, OR TO HAVE IT TRANSFERRED, TO ANOTHER JUDICIAL REGION.

HE IS ALSO, IN MY OPINION, AND NOT UNLIKE, A LOT OF OTHER CANADIAN JUDGES, CORRUPT, IN HIS ACTIONS, CONCERNING, HOW HE CAN BEND THE LAW, OR MANIPULATE IT, TO SUIT HIS PURPOSE.  SO IF HE WANTS TO MAKE A DECISION, AGAINST SOMEONE, BASED ON HIS OWN PERSONAL BIAS, HE WILL DO JUST THAT.

 AND THAT IS ALSO WHAT HE HAS DONE, IN REGARDS TO MY CASE, THAT WAS BEFORE, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE.  HE REGARDED, MY URGENT MATTER, WITH LITTLE CONCERN AND ALSO CONTEMPT,  AS IF IT WAS ALSO A BOTHER TO HIM, PERSONALLY, IN EVEN RESPONDING TO IT.  

MOST JUDGES TRIES TO COVER UP THEIR PERSONAL BIASES, AND OFTEN SHROUDED IT, IN MUCH DETAILS, IN THEIR REASONS.  THIS JUDGE, DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO GIVE HIS REASONS, WHICH IS ALSO A LEGAL REQUIREMENT, UNDER THE LAW.  THE REASON WHY HE DID NOT GIVE ANY REASONS, I BELIEVED, IS THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT CAME OUT PLAINLY AND SAY IN HIS INDORSEMENT, THAT HE WAS DISMISSING, MY URGENT MOTION, IN WHICH CASE HE WAS ALSO MANDATED, TO GIVE HIS REASONS FOR DOING SO. HE SHROUDED HIS DECISION, IN CAREFULLY WORDED STATEMENTS, IN HIS INDORSEMENT, THAT HE ALSO MADE ON MARCH 27, 2024, WHERE I HAD SOUGHT AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUCTION, OR A MANDATORY ORDER, IN ORDER TO STOP, THE HARM FROM HAPPENING TO ME, WHICH WOULD ALSO FORCED ME TO BECOME HOMELESS, HAVING LOSS MY PRIVATE HOME AND THIS CORRUPT JUDGE, DID NOT THINK THAT SUCH A SITUATION, WOULD ALSO BE HARMFUL TO ME.  GETTING ANOTHER PRIVATE RESIDENCE, IS ALSO A TOP PRIORITY FOR ME, WHICH I AM ALSO WORKING TO OBTAIN, AT THIS TIME. BUT THIS CANADIAN JUDGE AND ITS COURT, COULD NOT HAVE CARED LESS, IF I HAD FROZEN TO DEATH, BEING PUT OUT ON THE STREET, BY THE SHELTER.  JUST BECAUSE I WAS SEEKING AN EXTENSION, TO STAY AT THE SHELTER, WHILE I LOOKED FOR A RESIDENTIAL HOME, OF MY OWN.  THE SHELTER IS ALSO MANDATED, NOT TO PUT PEOPLE OUT, ON THE STREET. BUT THIS ONE WANTED TO DO THE OPPOSITE AND PUTS THE BURDEN ON YOU, TO FIND YOUR OWN PLACE TO LIVE, OR ELSE BE PUT OUT, ON THE STREET. THIS JUDGE, GRANT DOW, DID NOT REGARD, THIS AS BEING HARMFUL TO ME, OR REQUIRING THE COURT, TO IMMEDIATELY, INTERVENED, IN THE SITUATION, THAT WOULD ALSO CLEARLY CAUSED ME HARM, IF CARRIED OUT, BY THE RESPONDENT.  

 I ALSO HAVE THE RESPONDENT'S AGENTS, THE STAFF AT THE SHELTER, TRYING TO GET ME TO GO AGAINST THE ORDER, OR ENDORSEMENT, THAT WAS MADE BY THE COURT, AS A MEANS OF CIRCUMVENTING, ANY HEARING, BY THE COURT, OF THE ISSUES, AS RELATED TO MY URGENT MOTION, THAT HAS ALSO BEEN SERVED UPON THE RESPONDENT, AS THE COURT, HAS ALSO INDICATED, THAT I DO.  THIS ACTION IS ALSO CRIMINAL ON THEIR PART, SINCE TELLING SOMEONE TO BREACH A COURT ORDER, EVEN IF IT IS AN ENDORSEMENT, BY SELF EVICTING THEMSELVES, OR BY DOING OTHER THINGS AGAINST THE ORDER, WOULD ALSO BE A CRIMINAL ACT. THE OFFENCE BEING, COUNSELLING TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE, UNDER SECTION 22(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. THE OFFENCE BEING MADE, AGAINST THE ORDER, SINCE IT DID NOT TELL ME TO SELF EVICT MYSELF, FROM THE SHELTER, BUT TO SERVE THE RESPONDENT, WHERE IT WAS ALSO INTENDED BY THE SERVICE, FOR THE COURT TO HEAR BOTH SIDES, AT A LATER DATE. 

ONE THING THAT WAS MADE, ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, WHEN MY CASE WAS BEFORE HIM RECENTLY, WAS THAT HE ENFORCES, IN THE COURTROOM, THAT THE LIVES OF BLACKS, DO NOT MATTER TO HIM, AS A JUDGE, PRESIDING OVER CASES, THAT ALSO REQUIRES, THAT HE NOT ONLY RESPECT PEOPLE'S, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BUT TO ALSO RESPECT, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AND NOT TO BRING, ILL REPUTE TO IT.  SINCE I BELIEVED, THAT HIS ACTIONS, WAS ALSO DIRECTED, IN TARGETING ME, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AS WELL.

 EVERY JUDGE, IS LEGALLY OBLIGATED, TO MAKE A DECISION, THAT IS JUST, OR AT LEAST ONE, THAT APPEARS TO BE JUST.  IGNORING, AN IMPENDING HARM, THAT THE PARTY, COULD HAVE ALSO SUFFERED, SHOWS A CORRUPT JUDGE.  I HAD TO MAKE DO, WITH THE ORDER, THAT HE HAD ALSO MADE, HAVING A GENERAL KNOWLEDGE, OF THE LAW, MYSELF.  HE WANTED ME, TO NAVIGATE MY WAY, AROUND HIS DECISION AND TO GLEAN SOME KIND OF BENEFIT, FROM IT.  HE DID NOT CAME STRAIGHT OUT AND GRANTED ME THE ORDER, THAT I HAD ALSO SOUGHT, BUT FOUND WAYS TO AVOID DOING SO, BY TELLING ME, THAT THE ORDER WAS BENG MADE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ALSO THAT THE OTHER PARTY, MUST BE FIRST SERVED, ON MY EX-PARTE MOTON. AND THEN TO ALSO HAVE IT TRANSFERRED, TO ANOTHER JUDICIAL REGION, TO BE DEALT WITH BY THE COURT, IN THAT REGION.

ONE OF THE DILEMA, THAT I AM ALSO FACING WITH HIS ENDORSEMENT, IS IF ANOTHER JUDGE HEARING THE MATTER, WOULD ALSO REGARD THE SITUATION AS A RES JUDICATA, SITUATION.  IT WOULD SEEM THAT THIS JUDGE,  ALSO LEFT THE SITUATION UNCLEAR, BY STATING THAT SERVICE SHOULD ALSO BE MADE UPON THE RESPONDENTS, WITH THE EX-PARTE MOTION.  THAT WOULD ALSO SUGGEST, THAT THE MOTION WOULD AND SHOULD ALSO CONTINUE, FOLLOWING SERVICE BEING MADE UPON THE RESPONDENT, AND NOT A MATTER THAT IS ALSO FINISHED IN THE COURT.  

A MOTION THAT IS USUALLY FINISHED IN THE COURT, WOULD ALSO INDICATE THIS FINALITY, WITH THE REASONS OF THE JUDGE, ALSO GIVEN IN THE ORDER, OR ENDORSEMENT.  AND ALSO WITH THE DISMISSAL, OF THE MOTION.  WHY WOULD I REISSUE A MOTION, IF I WAS ALSO DIRECTED, BY THE JUDGE, OR COURT, TO SERVE THE SAID MOTION, ON THE RESPONDENT?. AND WHAT ABOUT THE COURT FILE NUMBER, THAT WAS ALSO ATTACHED TO THE URGENT MOTION AND ALSO THE CLAIM FOR TORT, THAT ALSO GOES WITH THE MOTION?. AM I TO START ALL OF THIS OVER AGAIN, IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION, WHEN I HAD ALREADY STARTED THIS PROCESS BEFORE?. I WAS ALSO TOLD, THAT I NEEDED TO FILE A MOTION, TO HAVE THE PREVIOUS URGENT MOTION, TRANSFERRED TO THE DIFFERENT REGION, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE, IN THAT REGION, WHERE BOTH PARTIES ARE LOCATED. DO YOU NOT SEE HOW THIS JUDGE, GRANT DOW, HAS ALSO, COMPLICATED THE MATTER, REGARDING MY MATTER, BEFORE THE COURT, AS A SELF REPRESENTED, LITIGANT.  TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS, UNNECESSARY ACTIONS, JUST TO GET AN URGENT MOTION, TO BE HEARD BY THE COURT. 

 

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 MOTIONS, INTAKE, AND TO THE MANAGER, ROXANNE PARIS, WHO WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT A JUDGE, HEARD THE URGENT MOTION, TODAY. WHAT THEY DID, WAS TO ACT IN A CONSPIRACY, TO DELAY THE URGENT MOTION, IN ORDER TO CAUSE ME HARM. 

THE STAFF INVOLVED, WERE, ROXANNE PARIS, MANAGER, OF CIVIL-INTAKE URGENT MOTIONS, AT THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, SANCHA CLARKE, MANAGER OF THE CIVIL INTAKE, A SUPERVISOR NAME DIANNE AND UZA, ANOTHER SUPERVISOR, IN THE COURT. 

THE MESSAGES, THAT I HAD RECEIVED, ABOUT THE STATUS, OF MY URGENT MOTION, WAS ALSO RELAYED TO ME, FROM UZA, DIRECTLY AND ALSO, FROM DIANNE, HER MANAGER. AFTER I HAD FILED THE URGENT MOTION, AT THE COURTHOUSE, THEY HAD SENT IT DIRECTLY TO ROXANNE PARIS, TO PUT IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE. NOW IT HAS TURNED OUT, THAT ROXANNE PARIS, HAD DELIBERATELY DELAYED, MY URGENT MOTION, FROM BEING HEARD BY THE COURT, IN ORDER TO CAUSE ME HARM.

THE GOAL, OF THE COURT STAFF, WAS TO DELAY, MY URGENT MOTION, FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY, INJUNCTION, OR MANDATORY ORDER, IN THE COURT, IN ORDER TO CAUSE, ME HARM. WHICH THEY ALSO DID. (Since the whole purpose, of filing an urgent motion, is to prevent harm, from being done to the party, who has filed the urgent motion).

WHERE I WILL BE TAKING THIS MATTER, LEGALLY:

1. TO THE CRIMINAL COURT, FOR THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (IN                                  INTERFERING, WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, OF JUSTICE. BREACH OF PUBLIC            TRUST, CORRUPTION AND CONSPIRACY, AGAINST, ROXANNE PARIS, ESPECIALLY.

2. TO THE CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL, AGAINST THE JUDGE, WHO HAD                        DELAYED, HEARING, THE URGENT MOTION, THAT WAS FILED, AT THE                            COURTHOUSE AND THEN WAS SENT DIRECTLY, TO THE URGENT MOTIONS,                  MANAGER, ROXANNE PARIS, BY THE COURT STAFF, TO BE GIVEN TO THE                      JUDGE,TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE URGENT  MOTION, THAT WAS BEFORE                HIM, ON THAT DAY. WHICH HE ALSO DELAYED.

3. TO FILE AN URGENT, PETITION, WITH THE INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON          HUMAN RIGHTS, FOR AN INTERVENTION, REGARDING, THE ABUSE OF MY                    HUMAN RIGHTS, IN THE CANADIAN COURTS.

4. TO FILE CHARGES, IN THE ITERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, AGAINST THE 

    CANADIAN JUDGES, AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, WHO HAS CARRIED

    OUT, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND OTHER CRUEL AND UNUSAL TREATMENT

    AGAINST ME. 

5. OTHER LEGAL AVENUES, TO RECOVER DAMAGES, OR COMPENSATION,                          INCLUDING, THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, FOR TARGETING ME AND                    SUBJECTING ME TO RACISM.

WHY I WILL BE FILING, A COMPLAINT, WITH THE, CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL, AGAINST THE JUDGE (WHOSE NAME, THE COURT STAFF, SUCH AS ROXANNE PARIS, MANAGER, OF CIVIL URGENT MOTIONS, WILL ALSO NOT RELEASE TO ME), FOR DELAYING, HEARING, MY URGENT MOTION, AFTER IT WAS, ALLEGEDLY, PUT IN FRONT OF HIM. TO NOT ONLY DEAL, WITH DISREPUTABLE CONDUCT, OF THE JUDGE, BUT TO ALSO MAKE SURE, THAT HE WILL ALSO THINK TWICE, ABOUT DOING THIS TO SOMEONE ELSE.

AND THAT AFTER FILING, MY COMPLAINT, WITH THE CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL, I WILL ALSO TAKE MY GRIEVANCE, BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COURT, AGAINST ALL OF THOSE, WHO WERE INVOLVED, IN VIOLATING, MY HUMAN RIGHTS, IN THIS MANNER.

THERE IS STILL A QUESTION, AS TO WHETHER MY URGENT MOTION, FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, OR MANDATORY ORDER, EVEN WENT BEFORE A JUDGE, OR THAT IT WAS SIMPLY, DELAYED, IN ORDER TO CAUSED ME HARM, BY ROXANNE PARIS AND ALSO BY, SANCHA CLARKE, BOTH OF THEM, MANAGERS, IN THE CIVIL INTAKE OFFICE, AT THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, IN TORONTO. 

EITHER THAT IS THE CASE, OR THE URGENT MOTION, ALSO NEVER WENT BEFORE ANY JUDGE, BECAUSE I WAS ALSO GIVEN THIS SCENARIO, BY THE COURT STAFF, UZA AND HER MANAGER, DIANNE.  DIANNE TOLD ME, DIRECTLY, THAT MY URGENT MOTION, WAS "BEING REVIEWED, BY THE JUDGE".  AT ANOTHER TIME, I WAS ALSO TOLD BY HER, THAT IT WAS BEING "REVIEWED BY A TEAM OF COURT STAFF", INCLUDING, ROXANNE PARIS, THE MANAGER, IN THE CIVIL URGENT MOTIONS OFFICE. 

WHOEVER, WAS REVIEWING, MY URGENT MOTION, WAS ALSO, DELIBERATELY, TRYING TO CAUSE A DELAY, IN A DECISION, BEING MADE ON IT, AND THAT THIS ACTION WAS ALSO INTENDED, TO CAUSED ME HARM. THAT WAS THEIR GOAL, BUT THE JOKE IS ALSO ON THEM, WHEN I TAKE LEGAL ACTIONS, AGAINST THEM. 

WHAT THEY DID, AND ESPECIALLY, ROXANNE PARIS, WAS NOT ONLY A CRIME, IN OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND INTERFERING, WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, IN MY CASE, BUT IT ALSO INTERFERED, WITH MY SO CALLED "GUARANTEED RIGHTS", UNDER THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION.  WHICH YOU WILL SOON REALIZED, DO NOT EXIST, FOR SOME PEOPLE, LIKE ME. 

ANOTHER SHELTER, IN PEEL REGION, COMES UNDER FIRE, FOR ABUSING, THE RESIDENTS' RIGHTS. THIS TIME, FOR THE GROSS CHARTER RIGHTS, BREACHES. THE UNLAWFUL SEARCH, OF THE MOSTLY, MENTALLY ILL, RESIDENTS', PERSONAL PROPERTY, THAT ARE ARBITRARILY, SEARCHED, DAILY, BY THE STAFF, LOOKING FOR WEAPONS, AND DRUGS, AND WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

SHOCKING! CHARTER RIGHTS, VIOLATIONS, THAT ARE CARRIED OUT, BY A SHLETER, IN MISSISSAUGA, PEEL REGION, THAT HAS, PREDOMINANTLY,  RESIDENTS, WHO SUFFERS FROM A, MENTAL DISABILITY. 

THE SHELTER, THAT IS OPERATED, AT THE MISSISSAUGA, LOCATION, AT 177 DUNDAS STREET WEST, IN MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO, IS FUNDED, BY THE PROVINCE AND INCORPORATES, OTHER ELEMENTS, OF THE PROGRAM, THAT SHOULD ALSO RAISE SOME EYEBROWS. AS WELL AS TO OUTRAGED, THE PUBLIC.

THE VULNERABLE RESIDENTS, MOSTLY YOUTHS, AND YOUNG ADULTS, (MALES), BUT ALSO SOME REGULAR ADULTS, SOME OF WHOM WERE, ALSO INVOLVED, IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, ARE SUBJECTED, TO THE ARBITRARY SEARCHES, OF THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY, THAT ARE LEFT IN THE ROOMS, BY THE STAFF AND HAVE ALSO BEEN TOLD BY THE STAFF, THAT THE SEARCH OF THEIR PERSONAL BELONGINGS, ARE ALSO A PART, OF THE DAILY ROOM CHECKS. THEY ARE ALSO NOT ALLOWED, TO RESIST THE ILLEGAL SEARCHES, AND HAVE ALSO BEEN TOLD, THAT THEY MUST ALSO COMPLY, WITH THE SEARCH. 

       GROSS ABUSE OF POWER, BY LESLEY NAGODA. 

AND ALSO BY THE SHELTER SUPERVOR, JOHN EYIAH, WHO WORKS AT THE DUNDAS STREET WEST, LOCATION, IN MISSISSAUGA, IN PEEL REGION. A LOT OF THE IGNORANCE, ON HIS PART, CONCERNING, THE CHARTER VIOLATIONS, OF THE SHELTER RESIDENTS, ARE COMING FROM HIM, DIRECTLY.  HE HAS ALSO TRIED, TO PROTECT HIMSELF, BY STATNG, THAT, HE AND THE STAFF, ONLY CARRY OUT SUCH ILLEGAL SEARCHES, OF THE RESIDENTS, PERSONAL PROPERTY, IN "HEIGHTENED SITUATIONS", (WHATEVER THAT MEANS TO THEM). THEY ALSO FAILED, TO REALIZED, THAT NONE OF THE SEARCHES, ARE ALSO JUSTIFIED, UNDER THE LAW. THAT THEY ARE A BLATANT VIOLATION, OF THE RESIDENTS PRIVACY, UNDER THE CHARTER AND OF THE SECURITY OF THEIR PERSONS, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 

 ( LESLEY NAGODA, DESERVING, TO BE FIRED, FROM THE BOARD, GOVERNING, THE SHIP PROGRAM, AND THE OTHER PROGRAMS, UNDER THAT UMBRELLA).  SHE IS ALSO PERSONALLY, LIABLE, UNDER THE LAW, FOR THOSE CHARTER OF RIGHTS  AND FREEDOMS, BREACHES.  AS WELL AS FACING SOME SERIOUS, LEGAL CONSEQUENCES, UNDER THE CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT AND THE ONTARIO BUSINESS CORPORATION'S ACT. THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND A PLETHORA OF OTHER LAWS, RELATING TO HER GOVERNANCE, AS THE CEO, OF THE CORPORATION, BETTER KNOWN AS SHIP.  

LESLEY, NAGODA, CEO
Directs the staff, at the SHIP (PROGAM)
(SERVICES AND HOUSING IN THE PROVINCE)
TO REGULARLY SEARCH, THE RESIDENTS', PERSONAL PROPERTY,
DAILY, AND WITHOUT, THE RESIDENTS, BEING PRESENT,
DURING THE ILLEGAL SEARCH. NOR TO GET THEIR CONSENT, TO THE 
UNLAWFUL SEARCHES. 

14 RESIDENTS, HAVE DIED, AT THE SAME SHELTER, OVER THE LAST, SEVERAL YEARS. MANY OF THOSE DEATHS, WERE ALSO FROM, A DRUG OVERDOSE. 

WHEN YOU TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE PROGRAM, YOU WILL ALSO SEE WHY.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL "TORTURE" PROGRAM, THAT INVOLVES, THE OVERSTIMULUS  OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE DISRUPTIVE ACTIONS, OF THE STAFF, REGARDING, THE RESIDENTS. MANY OF WHOM SUFFERS, FROM ANXIETY, DEPRESSION AND OTHER, MENTAL ILLNESSES.
The residents in the short term program, are subjected to the following:

* Medical diagnosis, by staff, who are not qualified, to do so. With no license, or medical degrees, behind their names. The resident is suddenly, labelled, as being, "paranoid", if they questions, the staff's actions or motives. Showing, an abuse of power, by the staff. Most of them, are also too vulnerable, to know their legal rights and allows the staff, to infringed on those rights.

* One of the residents, complained, about his medical marijuana, being taken away, by the staff. Despite the fact, that he has medical documentation, for the medicinal use of it, as related to his medical treatment. (perhaps, this is the "drug", that the staff claimed, to have seized, during those illegal search and seizure, of the residents' personal property, during the room checks. Which should have been related, to the cleanliness, of the rooms only. And not to the illegal searches, of the residents' personal property, in the rooms.

* Shelter staff, who are mandated, according to their policy, from the management, to open the door and to check on the residents, every hour of the day and night. Although, this actually happens, a little less, but every couple of hours, the staff opens the resident's door, and check on them, to "see if they are still alive". Keep in mind, that those persons, also came to the shelter, in good health. 

* The shelter policy, that have the residents, remained on the property, for the next 24 hours after arriving at the shelter, where they are then subjected, to the frequent disruption, from the staff, such as opening their doors, nearly every hour, to check on them and who then records their responses and other behaviours. And also makes clinical judgements and assessments, from their distorted views, on the residents. 

* None of those staff, are also medically qualified, to make those clinical judgements, or assessments, of the resident, and none of them has a license, or medical degree, behind their names. 

* There is also a curious, bit of information, that may also tie into the actions of the staff and the police's alleged own role, (if at all, that is the actual case, in the illegal searches, of the residents personal property, in the rooms). Since the police, of all people, should also know, about the seriousness, of the Charter violations. God only knows how many lawsuits, have been filed against them, for just that alone. This is the fact that, some of the beds at the shelter, are also provided by the police. That's right, the police pays, for those beds, called, "police beds".  So not only are the shelter beds, in that SHIP program, paid for by the Region of Peel and the Province, as well as by other funders, but some of those beds, are also paid for by the police program, itself. 

*This makes the scenario, also, especially scary, since the police are also known, to not only carry out illegal searches, on their own, but to also on occasions, also plants "evidence", on suspects, when they also feel like it. This makes the illegal searches, in the residents rooms, even more reprehensible, by shelter staff. Because if the police is also willing, they could also join up with the staff and to carry out even more violations, of those residents rights, during those illegal search and seizure, of their personal belongings, without a warrant, during those daily room checks. The fact that some of the residents, are also either physically or mentally challenged, make the situation, even more disgusting.  They literally, have not the means to fight back, on their own, against the staff's actions, in violating their Charter rights and Constitutional rights, by those unlawful searches. 

* The residents are subjected, to having meetings with their workers, who works in three different shifts. Including, the midnight shift (grave yard) shift. From midnight, to morning. Which is also when most normal people are sleeping, during the night. Not so with the SHIP program, the residents in the program, are also expected, to meet with the overnight staff, who is their worker and discuss their issues. As the overnight shift begins, at midnight, the shelter staff, at that time or any time after midnight, also opens the residents doors, with their keys and disrupts their sleep and wellbeing. Again, residents are told, that the reasons for doing so, was for their own safety. The shelter staff, has claimed, that it was part of their duty, to make sure that the residents, were alive and not ill, or dead, inside of their rooms. 

ALTHOUGH, THE SHELTER HOUSING IN PROVINCE, OR SHIP, PROGRAM, INTEGRATES SOME HEALTH PROGRAMS, SUCH AS SUBSTANCE ABUSE, OR DRUG ABUSE, PROGRAMS, AT THE SHELTER, EITHER THROUGH, REFERRALS, OR COUNSELLING, IT MAIN GOAL SEEM TO BE TARGETED, AT CARRYING OUT, SOME OTHER OUTLANDISH, PROGRAMS, WHICH ADVERSE EFFECTS, CAN BE SEEN BY THE DEATHS OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE SELTER, IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. FOURTEEN DEATHS SO FAR AND COUNTING, A WELL AS THE PRESENT PROGRAM, THT CAN ALSO BE CONSIDERED, AS PSYCHOLOGICALLY AND PHYSICALLY, ABUSIVE. 

E.G. AS MENTIONED, EARLIER, THE SHELTER STAFF, ARE MANDATED, TO KNOCK AND THEN TO OPENED THE DOORS, OF THE RESIDENTS ROOMS, EVERY HOUR OF THE DAY AND NIGHT. THAT IS TWENTY FOUR TIMES!  BUT THE STAFF HAS ADMITTED, THAT THEY ALSO DO THAT ROOM CHECK, FAR LESS TIMES. BUT STILL TOO MANY. THIS HAPPENS, MORNING, NOON, EVENING AND NIGHT. WAY TOO MANY TIMES. FOR A MENTALY DISABLED, RESIDENT, WHO ALSO SUFFERS FROM ANXIETY, THIS IS FAR TOO MANY TIMES, TO DISRUPT, THEIR MENTAL STATE AND WELLBEING.  AND NO WONDER THE 14 DEATHS, AT THE SHELTER, OVER THE YEARS. 

THE STAFF, ALSO CLAIMED, THAT THEY HAVE ALSO, RECOVERED, WEAPONS AND DRUGS, DURING THOSE SEARCHES. ONE OF THE STAFF, AT THE SHELTER, NAME SHANNON, ALSO CLAIMED, THAT THE RESIDENTS, IN THE PAST, HAD ALSO RESISTED AND COMPLAINED, OF THE ILLEGAL SEARCH, OF THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY, SO THE STAFF THEN RESORTED, TO CONDUCTING THOSE SEARCHES, WHILE THE RESIDENTS, WERE OUT OF THE ROOMS.

THIS STILL DID NOT MAKE THE SEARCHES, LEGAL AND WAS A GROSS VIOLATION, OF THE RESIDENTS' CHARTER RIGHTS, UNDER, CANADA'S CONSTITUTION, WHICH ALSO INCLUDED, THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. THE FOCUS HERE, IS ON SECTION 7 AND SECTION 8, OF THE CHARTER, MAINLY. THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE SECURITY OF PERSON AND ALSO THE RIGHT AGAINST, AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  BOTH OF WHICH WERE CARRIED OUT, BY THE SHELTER STAFF, DAILY.  AND ALSO, DIRECTLY UNDER, THE DIRECTIVES, OF LESLEY LAGODA, CEO AND BOARD MEMBER, THAT OPERATES THE SHELTER.

                                      

                                    

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, CLERKS, WHO HAVE ACTED BIAS, AGAINST SELF REPRESENTED, LITIGANTS. AND EVEN TAKING ON THE ROLE, OF A JUDGE, WHEN REVIEWING THE CASES, THAT ARE BEFORE THE COA. RATHER THAN STAYING WITH, THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE DUTY, THEY ARE NOW MAKING DECISIONS, OUTSIDE OF THEIR JURISDICTION. KEEPING IN MIND, THAT THE COA DEALS, WITH MOTIONS AND APPEALS.

THE CONSPIRACY, I BELIEVED, WAS TO BLOCK MY MATTERS, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO,  AND THIS WAS ALSO DONE, BY THE COURT'S STAFF. 

ONE SUCH STAFF, NAJMA, SENT ME AN EMAIL, AS A CARBON COPY, AFTER SENDING THE SAME EMAIL, TO THE REGISTRAR, TASHEKAH GENTLES, OF THE DIVISIONAL COURT, DISCUSING MY MATTER, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. BASICALLY, ASKING THE REGISTRAR, TASHEKAH GENTLES, ON HOW TO PROCEED, WITH MY MATTER IN THE COA, THE HIGHTER COURT. SHE THEN LATER, SOMEWHAT, APOLOGIZED AND ALSO CLAIMED, THAT THE EMAIL, WAS INTENDED, FOR HER SUPERIOR. 

THE COURT OF APPEAL STAFF, REGULARLY, BLOCKED MY MATTERS, FROM MOVING FORWARD, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. AND I USUALLY, HAVE TO WAIT MANY MONTHS, FOR THE DOCUMENTS, TO BE FILED IN THE COA, AFTER SENDING IT TO THE COURT FOR FILING. NOR ARE THEY EVEN SET DOWN, TO BE HEARD, BY THE SINGLE JUDGE, OR PANEL OF THE COA. (SO FAR, MY MOTIONS FOR LEAVE, HAS NOT GONE TO THE PAEL, BUT TO A SINGLE JUDGE). THIS WAS ALL THE DOINGS, OF THE CLERKS, SUCH AS SANDY, NOAH, CHRIS, OR NAJAMA, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO.

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO, STAFF, BLOCKING ACCESS, TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HONORABLE, MICHAEL TULLOCH, REGARDING A COMPLAINT, AGAINST THEM.  LIKEWISE, THE SECRETARY, LISA HO, TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE, ALSO BLOCKED MY LETTER OF COMPLAINT, TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT OF APPEAL.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario, clerks, not only reviews your documents for filing, they are also now, making decisions on your documents, that only a judge should also make.  In my case, the staff at the COA, blocked a motion for leave to appeal, the decision of a single judge, of the Divisional court,  some months ago, telling me that it must be heard by the panel first.  At the same time, it also allowed another motion for leave, of a another single judge of the Divisional court's decision, to be filed in the COA and also assigned a file number to that document.  Why the discrepancy, since both decisions, were made by single motions judges, of the Divisional court?. When you look deeper into the situation, you get to see, that the clerks, were actually trying to personally, interfere. in the cases before the COA, by deciding which case gets through and which ones do not. (I will be expanding, on this article, soon).