criminalbydesign.files.wordpress.com · Web view2018. 3. 12. · The Applicant alleges that DC Joe Willmets (974) laid before a Justice of the Peace Information 07-02559 and took

-1-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)

Wayne Ferron

-versus-

Joe Willmets(974)

(Court seal)

______________________________

AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM ______________________________

NOTICE of ACTION issued on November 21st, 2011STATEMENT of CLAIM served on December 9th, 2011

FORM 14C Courts of Justice Act

Pursuant to RULE 14, of the RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

-2-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00NOTICE OF ACTION


Wayne Ferron

-versus-

Joe Willmets(974)

AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM NOTICE of ACTION issued on November 21st, 2011

STATEMENT of CLAIM served on December 9th, 2011

TO:


-3-


Joe Willmets(974), Informantfor Information 07-02559 17250 Yonge ST., Newmarket, Ontario, L3Y 4W5, 1 800-668-0398;

AMENDED CLAIM STARTED BY NOTICE OF ACTION

The plaintiff’s claim is for:


-4-


BASES OF OFFICER JOE WILLMETS(974) INFORMATION 07-02559:[1] The Applicant alleges that the OFFICE IN CHARGE(DCst Broughton(1079)), falsely

allege impaired operation over/over 80 mgs in Invoice (07-3542); without the application

of a Breathalyzer test and the same impaired status being determined solely on subjec-

tive bases of allege “Post Offence Conduct Evidence”.

[2] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-In-Charge(DCst Broughton(1079)), falsely al-

lege impaired operation/over 80 mgs in Invoice (07-3542) for the main charge; without

the application of a Breathalyzer test or the arresting officer being a “qualified field sobri-

ety test officer” and the same impaired status being determined solely on subjective

bases of allege “Post Offence Conduct Evidence”.


lege the Claimant consumed drugs in Invoice (07-3542); without the application of a

Drugs Recognition Expert test(DRE test) and the same impaired status being deter-

mined solely on subjective bases of allege “Post Offence Conduct Evidence”, without an

objective determination of the type of drugs used in consumption, even-though the York

Regional Police publicly claimed to be leaders in the Drug Recognition Expert(DRE)

Program.


lege in his notes that “ one in cells male began taking clothes off and acting irrationally”


-5-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00in his memorandum note book at about 00:24 on the 28th of March 2007; which is con-

trary to the booking video evidence.

[3] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-In-Charge(DCst Broughton(1079)), allege in

his notes that “ Opportunity for lawyer/D.C. suspended” in his memorandum note book

at about 00:24 on the 28th of March 2007; which is contrary to the booking video evi-

dence.

[1] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-In-Charge(DCst Broughton(1079)), allege in

his INITIAL OFFICER REPORT IMPAIRED on the 28th of March 2007 at 00:55 in In-

voice(07-3542); that “at approximately 00:13 hrs officer 1399 formed reasonable

grounds that the Accused Mr Wayne FERRON was impaired by drugs” in contradiction


-6-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00to DC Stribbell’s Gregory’s(#529) PROSECUTION SUMMARY-GUILTY PLEA SYNOP-

SIS, WAYNE FERRON, in the same invoice.

[1] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-Task-To-Investigate GO# 2007-70285(DC

Stribbell’s Gregory’s(#529)), allege in his PROSECUTION SUMMARY-GUILTY PLEA

SYNOPSIS, WAYNE FERRON, on the 28th of Mar. 2007 at 06:54 in Invoice(07-3542);

that “ at 013 hours officers formed the opinion that the accused's ability to operate a

motor vehicle was impaired by drugs” in contradiction to DCst Broughton(1079) INITIAL

OFFICER REPORT IMPAIRED, in the same invoice.


Stribbell’s Gregory’s(#529)), falsely allege in his SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT,

on the 28th of Mar. 2007 at 06:54 in Invoice(07-3542); that “when officers went to hand-

cuff him the accused became assaultive towards the officers.”


Stribbell’s Gregory’s(#529)), falsely allege in his PROSECUTION SUMMARY-GUILTY

PLEA SYNOPSIS, WAYNE FERRON, on the 28th of Mar. 2007 on page 1 comment

box 1 in Invoice(07-3542); that “ His wife indicated to police that he does not abuse

drugs or alcohol. In the past however he has used drugs.”

******************[3] The Applicant alleges that the Officer-Task-To-Investigate GO#

2007-70285(DC Stribbell’s Gregory’s(#529)), falsely allege in his memorandum note-


-7-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00book, on the 28th of Mar. 2007 on page ; that the claimant “ ...used crack-cocaine in the

past, but only a short time.”

[3] The Applicant alleges that the Complainant, falsely allege that the claimant was “ up

to no good” in the Applicant’s 98% caucasian neighborhood , after identifying the

Claimant as a “Black male..” in is conversation with the 911 dispatch.

[3] The Applicant alleges that DC Burd(1075), willfully applied racial prejudgement with-

out material or objective evidence, by calling the accused “c r a c k h e a d”, upon first

instant of contact and with out the application of presumption of innocence or a reason-

able prudent investigation while the Claimant’s was in compliance with legal require-

ments of the HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT.

[3] The Applicant alleges that Staff Sergeant Bruce Ringler (193), allege in his notes

that “They suspect impaired by drugs - cocaine or crack cocaine...” in his memorandum

note book at about 12:45 PM on the 28th of March 2007.

[3] The Applicant alleges that Officer Monk, falsely allege in his notes that “In speaking

with sgt. Williamson, D/C Burd, PC Brown, Det. Broughton collectively formed grounds

that male was impaired by way of drug .” In his memorandum note book at about 00:13

on the 28th of March 2007.


-8-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00[3] The Applicant alleges that DC Stribbell’s Gregory’s(#529)), fraudulently filed a RE-

QUEST FOR RECORDED VOICE COMMUNICATIONS G0# 2007-70285 for the inves-

tigation for the purpose of laying charges on the 29th of March 2007 in Invoice(07-

3542).

[6] The Applicant alleges that Officer William Hird(6058) did, laid before a Justice of the

Peace under false pretense with the false identity of B. Hird, or alias of B. Hird, or

Moniker of B. Hird, as the informant to Information 07-02500 while he was employed by

Her-Majesty in Right of Ontario and acting in the legal capacity of Court Security Officer

William Herd, contrary to Section 361, subsection (1), of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[6] The Applicant alleges that Officer William Hird(6058) did, mislead a Justice of the

Peace while laying before the same Justice with the false identity of B. Hird, as the in-

formant to Information 07-02500 and took an oath of reasonable belief for the same in -

formation while he was employed by Her-Majesty in Right of Ontario and acting in the

legal capacity of Court Security Officer William Hird, contrary to Section 131, subsec-

tion (1), of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[6] The Applicant alleges that Officer William Hird(6058) did, make a false oath while

laying before a Justice of the Peace Information 07-02500 with the false identity of B.

Hird, and took an oath of reasonable belief for the same information while he was em-

ployed by Her-Majesty in Right of Ontario and acting in the legal capacity of Court Secu-


-9-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00rity Officer William Hird, contrary to Section, 138 clause c, of the Criminal Code of

Canada.

[6] The Applicant alleges that Officer William Hird(6058) did, pervert or obstruct

course of justice while laying before a Justice of the Peace Information 07-02500 with

the false identity of B. Hird, and took an oath of reasonable belief for the same informa-

tion while he was employed by Her-Majesty in Right of Ontario and acting in the legal

capacity of Court Security Officer William Hird, contrary to Section 139, subsection

(2) , of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[6] The Applicant alleges that Officer B. Hird Information could not have found process,

since his oath of reasonable belief is false, his Identity is false and B. Hird does not exist

as a separate and distinct entity at York Regional Police as a legal person employed by

Her-Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario. He is in-fact a phantom which has success-

fully filed an information of reasonable belief, a phantom which has successfully took an

oath of reasonable belief before a Justice of the Peace, a phantom which has success-

fully had a citizen of Canadian society at large charged, a phantom which has success-

fully retained a lawyer, and a phantom which has successfully convince the SUPERIOR

COURT OF ONTARIO, that monies must be paid for cost incurred in civil litigation

against the same phantom which does not exist or is employed by Her-majesty the

Queen in Right of Ontario.


-10-


ALLEGE ACTIONABLE WRONGS BY OFFICER JOE WILLMETS(974):[1] The Applicant alleges that DC Stribbell(529) and DCst Broughton(1079), the authors

of the Invoice (07-3542) used as the bases for the allegations in Information 07-02559

are not credible and it is the responsibility of Officer Joe Willmets to vet the factual Infor-

mation for truthfulness which he relied on to swear an oath of the truthfulness of the al -

legations in Information 07-02559 and his reasonable belief. Any discrepancies sur-

rounding the said Information(07-02559), Officer Joe Willmets must claim responsibility;

it is a cross he chose when he swore a positive oath of reasonable belief for Information

07-02559 and it is a cross he should carry.

[3] The Applicant alleges that DC Joe Willmets (974) laid before a Justice of the Peace

Information 07-02559 and took an oath of reasonable belief of the truthfulness of the al-

legations within the same information without having a signed statement from the com-

plainant, in addition to not vetting the information contained in Officer Broughton’s(1079)


-11-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00Invoice(07-3542) or taking into consideration the credibility of rellevant Officers or the

validity of information 07-02500 and the credibility of it’s informant B. Hird.

[4] DC Joe Willmets (974) within the context of public confidence and the trust of Her-

Majesty the Queen placed in him to duly perform his professional duty; should have

known or aught to have known that RECOGNIZANCE OF BAIL 07-02500 was entered

into by the Claimant and filing Information 07-02559 was contrary to Section 505,

clause b.

[2] DC Joe Willmets (974) within the context of public confidence and the trust Her-


known or aught to have known that DC Stribbell(529) and DCst Broughton(1079) were


-12-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00not credible Officers of the Law and their Invoice(07-3542), was in question before

swearing a positive oath of reasonable belief of the truthfulness of the allegation within

his Information(07-02559), without witnessing or possessing personal knowledge of

GO# 2007-70285.

[3] The Applicant alleges that DC Joe Willmets (974) said Oath was a false oath which

set the wheel of justice into motion and causing the Applicant to be unnecessarily ha-

rassed.

[4] DC Joe Willmets (974) within the context of public confidence and the trust of Her-


known or aught to have known that Court Security Officer William Hird(6058), who is not

legally known to be B. Hird and had mislead the Judicial Officer for Information 07-

02500 in swearing a positive oath of reasonable belief on the truthfulness of the allega-

tions in Information 07-02500, which is based on two non credible Officers of the Law,

DC Stribbell (529) and DCst Broughton(1079) Invoice(07-3542) that is in question.

[5] Joe Willmets swore a positive oath of reasonable belief of the truthfulness of the al-

legation within his Information(07-02559), without witnessing or possessing personal

knowledge of GO# 2007-70285.


-13-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00[6] The Applicant alleges that Court Security Officer William Hird laid before a justice of

the peace and under the false identity of B. Hird, Information 07-02500 in violation of

Section 122., Section 131., Section 132., of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[7] The Applicant also alleges that DC Joe Willmets (974) acted contrary to his profes-

sional duty and violated the public trust for the part he played in replacing an alleged de-

fective Information(07-02500); his Oath for Information 07-02559 is allege to be a false

oath which set the wheel of justice into motion and causing the Applicant to be unneces-

sarily harassed.

[8] DC Joe Willmets (974) within the context of public confidence and the trust Her-


known or aught to have known that he must file or lay before a Justice of the Peace in a

Court of competent Jurisdiction an Information(07-02559), in the prescribed time indi-

cated by Section 505.(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada; in any event, before the ac-

cuse enters into a Recognizance for Information 07-02500 in accordance with parlia-

mentary legislation.

[9] DC Joe Willmets(974) should have known or aught to have known that the afore-

mentioned was foreseeable in bringing his information into question; yet he swore a

positive oath of reasonable belief of the truthfulness of the allegation within his Informa-

tion(07-02559), in the absence of a signed statement from the complainant, without wit-

nessing or possessing personal knowledge of GO# 2007-70285.


-14-


[10] The Applicant alleges that DC Joe Willmets (974) said Oath was a false oath which

set the wheel of justice into motion and causing the Applicant to be unnecessarily ha-

rassed.

[11] The Applicant allege that DC Joe Willmets(974), improperly set the full force of the

wheel of justice against the Claimant when he took an oath of reasonable belief of the

allegations contained in Information No.: 07-02559 and filed the said information

against the Claimant.

[12] DC Joe Willmets(974), failed in his obligation as a Crown Agent and an Informant

in swearing an information, to swear-truthfully and not to mislead the Judicial Officer en-

dorsing his Information(07-02559), thereby causing the harassment of the Applicant by

irresponsible laying charges of which there was no substance.

[13] Moreover, it is perjury to make a false oath and render the jurat defective. The Ap-

plicant allege that DC Joe Willmets(974), should have known or aught to have known

that his irresponsible unprofessional action was foreseeable in causing the Applicant

unnecessary aggravation, mental distress, Criminal branding, social stigmatization and

irreparable damage to the Applicant life, his children lives and his families lives.


-15-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00[14] The aforesaid negligent action and misfeasance procurement of an information,

breaches the Applicant’s confidence in the legal process, risk trivializing the judicial sys-

tem and risk damaging the reputation of the Administration of Justice.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS[15] An Information (07-02500) was filed against Wayne FERRON in the Ontario Court

of Justice on 28th of March 2007. A second Information (07-02559) was filed against

Wayne Ferron on 29th of March 2007 in the Ontario Court of Justice. The start of the

trial hearings for Information 07-02500 and 07-02559 commenced on 18 th January 2008

at 50 Eagle St, in Newmarket in the Ontario Court of Justice with Ms. Goodier for the

Crown, unrepresented defence and the honorable Mr. Justice Kenkel as the presiding

judge. A judgement of guilty on all counts was rendered on the 26th of September

2008.

[16] The Crown chose to withdraw Information No. 07-02500, and elected to proceed by

summary conviction on Information No. 07-02559, with the Impaired by a Drug charge

(count 1), contrary to section 253 of C.C. withdrawn.

[17] The Applicant was arraigned on the 18th of January 2008 in the afternoon, on count

2 and count 3 for Information No. 07-02559; with a plea of not guilty.


-16-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00[18] A judgement of guilty on all counts (count 1, count 2) was rendered on the 26 th of

September 2008.

[19] On the 27th of July 2009, the Applicant’s Hearing date for a prior filed motion, Appli-

cation to Admit evidence for Inmate Appeal; pursuant to Section 504, 506, 788 of the

C.C. and RULE 30. Of particular interest in the Application; was a request to cross ex-

amined Officer B. Hird (who is legally known as William Hird (6058) by the YORK RE-

GIONAL POLICE SERVICES), the informant or affiant for Information 07-02500 and

Joe Willmets (974), the informant or affiant for Information 07-02559.

[20] Both Officers are allege to have swore false Oaths for there reasonable belief of

personal knowledge of GO 2007-70285 in there respective Information against the Ap-

plicant. Mr. Tait for the Crown argued against the said Officers (who were never called

or whose Officer’s notes has never been disclosed for the summary conviction trial or

the Appeal of right at the Appellate Court), to give evidence in respect to there respec-

tive Informations against the Applicant with regards to there reasonable belief, the truth-

fulness of their allegations, and personal knowledge of GO 2007-70285.

[21] This in the Claimant’s humble opinion, is lack of due-diligence, and desire to vet the

allegations in the informations in the initial phase of the process; moreover, an opposi-

tion to both Informants respectively defending and justifying there respective Informa-

tions against the Claimant Wayne Ferron, which are allege to contain false oaths (per-

jury) by way of a defective Jurat, byway of an Information not worded accordingly for an

informant who does-not have personal knowledge of the allegation stated a FORM2.


-17-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00The Motion was dismissed for not fulfilling the requirements for introducing new evi-

dence in a summary conviction Appeal.

[22] If the informants were called, this would give the Officers and the Crown the oppor-

tunity to defend the validity, legal basis and benefit to society of there respective Infor-

mation against the Claimant. But the Informants were never called to give evidence.

[23] Information No. 07 - 02500count 1 Wayne Ferron, On or about the 27th day of March in the year 2007 at the Town

of Georgina in the Regional Municipality of York did, while his ability to operate a motor

vehicle was impaired by a drug, operate a motor vehicle, contrary to section 253, clause

(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

count 2 AND FURTHER THAT, Wayne FERRON, on or about the 27th day of March in

the year 2007 at the Town of Georgina in the Regional Municipality of York did resist

Jeffrey Monk, a peace officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 129,

clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[24] The Applicant’s disclosed COPY of information 07-02500 on or about 12th of April

2007. There is no informant name or signature listed. Likewise, there is no Justice of

the peace name or confirmation signature.

[25] At the top left hand corner there is a typographical error of the accused name which

is crossed out. The Information is alleged not to be worded accordingly in a FORM 2 for

an informant who does-not have personal knowledge of the allegation stated therein.


-18-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00[26] The Applicant’s certified COPY of information 07-02500; obtained from the New-

market Courthouse Registrar after the arraignment of the accused and the commence-

ment of the trial on 18th of January 2008. The Informant’s name on he front of the infor-

mation appears to be B. HIRD, (who is legally known as William Hird (6058) by the

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES). The Affiant’s or Informant’s signature appears

to be BALTAL. There is a Justice of the Peace confirmation signature present for the

confirmation date of 28th of March 2007.

[27] At the top left hand corner there is no typographical error of the accused name

which is crossed out. The Information is alleged not to be worded accordingly in a

FORM 2 for an informant who does-not have personal knowledge of the allegation

stated therein.

[28] The following information was recently disclose to the Applicant by York Regional

Police under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;

Ref. #11-0247April 26, 2011Incident # 07-70285

• Disclosure for Informant or affiant William Hird (6058) - Information 07-02500.• Disclosure for Informant or affiant Joe Willmets (974) - Information 07-02559.• Disclosure for Chris Larone (1418), this is Officer X and incorrectly refereed to as

P.C. Lenore.

“Re: Your request for records in relation to Incident #07-70285, which was an impaired driving complaint investigated by York Regional Police

I am responding to your request for access to information, which has been treated as a request for personal information under the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Our file number is 11-0247.


-19-


In response to your request for information regarding the above noted, at-tached are copies of the notebook entries of Constable Willmets #974, willsay and notebook entries of Constable Larone #1418 and notebook entries of Court Security Officer Bird #6058 for Incident #07-70285. Also attached is a copy of the court information for Incident #07-70285, which has a court file case number of #07-3542 and a computer disc contain-ing the audio recordings of all communications between the York Regional Police call centre and all officers dispatched in relation to Incident #07-70285.

In regards to your request for records from the two public complaint files, PCIB #2007- 12-05 and PCIB #2008 -11-09, I wish to advise that the in-formation you requested is excluded under the Municipal Freedom of In-formation and Protection of Privacy Act due to Bill 7. {...}This office has confirmed that no records or documentation exists in regards to a search of your vehicle in regards to Incident #07-70285.”

(Janet Ryland, Analyst, Freedom of Information Unit-Legal Service)

[29] Information No. 07 - 02559

count 1 Wayne Ferron, On or about the 27th day of March in the year 2007 at the Town

of Georgina in the Regional Municipality of York did, while his ability to operate a motor

vehicle was impaired by a drug, operate a motor vehicle, contrary to section 253, clause

(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.


the year 2007 at the Town of Georgina in the Regional Municipality of York did resist

Jeffrey Monk, a peace officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 129,

clause (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.


the year 2007 at the Town of Georgina in the Regional Municipality of York did operate

a motor vehicle on Woodbine Avenue in a manner dangerous to the public, contrary to

section 249, subsection (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.


-20-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00[30] The Applicant’s disclosed COPY of Information 07-02559 on or about 13th of April

2007. There is no informant name or signature listed. Likewise, there is no Justice of

the peace name or confirmation signature.

[31] At the top left hand corner there is a typographical error of the accused name,

which is crossed out. The Information is alleged not to be worded accordingly in a

FORM 2 for an informant who does-not have personal knowledge of the allegation

stated therein.

[32] The Applicant’s certified COPY of information 07-02559; obtained from the New-

market Courthouse Registrar after the arraignment of the Applicant and the commence-

ment of the trial on 18th of January 2008.

[33] The informant’s name on the front of the information is JOE WILLMETS and the in-

formant’s signature is JOE WILLMETS. The Justice of the Peace signature is present

for the confirmation date of 29th of March 2007.

[34] At the top left hand corner, there is no typographical error of the accused name

which is crossed out. The Information is not worded in accordance with a person who

does-not have personal knowledge of the allegations in my humble opinion.

[35] On the 28th of March 2007, the Applicant was released under Form 32.1 (a) for in-

formation 07-02500 on his own RECOGNIZANCE. The RECOGNIZANCE OF BAIL


-21-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00for information 07-02500 was entered into one day before information 07-02559

was filed.

[36] The copy of information 07-02500 disclosed to the Applicant before the commence-

ment of the trial, did-not contain the name or names of the informant. The Applicant

was never disclosed the informant’s, Officer’s notes from his memorandum notebook,

even-though he requested for all officers present for GO 2007-70285 notes to be dis-

closed to him.

[37] The Informant was never called or examined in Chief by the Crown. Hence, the

Applicant was never given the opportunity to exercise his rights to cross examine the

informant and his respective information.

[38] Furthermore; since the disclosed copy of information 07-02500, was sterile of the

informant name. The Applicant lacked the necessary and sufficient information to call

and examine the informant with respect to his sworn information of reasonable belief.

[39] Moreover; the Applicant has no recollected personal knowledge that B. HIRD (who

is legally known as Court Security Officer William Hird (6058) by the YORK REGIONAL

POLICE SERVICES) or BALTAL or JOE WILLMETS; all of whom was never present

for GO 2007-70285. Furthermore, the Applicant does not believe he knows who the

said affiant is, he does not know the said informant’s badge number, nor does he be-

lieve he has ever met the said Court Security Peace Officer before.


-22-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00[40] The copy of Information 07-02559 disclosed to the Applicant on or about 13 th of

April 2007, before the commencement of the trial. Did-not contain the name of the infor-

mant. The Applicant was never disclosed Officer’s Notes from the informant’s memo-

randum notebook, even-though he requested for all Officers present for GO 2007-70285

Notes to be disclosed to him. The affiant was never called or examined in Chief by the

Crown. Hence, the Applicant was never given the opportunity to exercise his rights to

cross examine the informant and his Information.

[41] Furthermore; since the disclosed copy of information 07-02559, was sterile of the

informant’s and Justice of the peace names. The Applicant lacked the necessary and

sufficient information to call and examine the informant with respect to his sworn infor-

mation of reasonable belief. Moreover; the Applicant have no recollected personal

knowledge that JOE WILLMETS (974) was ever present for GO 2007-70285. Further-

more, He does not believe he knows who the said informant is or have ever met JOE

WILLMETS (974) before.

[42] The aforementioned matter concerning the informations infers a high probability

that both Informations contains false oaths and are rendered null and void by way of

defective jurats.

[43] Asper the Ontario Provincial Court of Justice in the April 28, 2008 Application Tran-

script on page 23;

“The dispatcher’s comments about an officer being lost, the Crown is go-ing to call the officers involved, including the one who apparently was un-


-23-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00familiar with the area and became lost at some point. It’s not plain at all to me that the comments made by a police dispatcher would at all be rele-vant, but I understand that the Crown - the Crown is, just to be cautious about it, the Crown is going to try to obtain the dispatch records and dis-close. The Crown is calling all the officers involved...”

(Justice Kenkel, April 28, 2008 Application Transcript; page 23, line 20-32)

[44] Furthermore, the Courts states in the April 28, 2008 Application Transcript on page

24&25;

“THE COURT: I’ll just leave it at this. That the - Crown is to make sure that officers being called, if they’re you know, if disclosure is - is there and pro-vide it to the accused for any officer being called and just with respect to that list of eight, if - if he one who is not being called, if the Crown could just provide an indication of why not to the - to the defence.”

(Justice Kenkel, April 28, 2008 Application Transcript; page 24&25, line 31-32, line 1-6)

[45] All the officers having personal knowledge of GO 2007-70285 were called, except

for Officer X and Officer Y. The Officers who filed and sworn an oath of personal belief

and to having personal knowledge of the allegations in Information 07-02500 & 07-

02559 were not among the Officers called to give evidence nor was any of the affiants

Officer X or Officer Y. Officer X is more than likely “P.C. Larone”. But P.C. Larone did

not file any of the informations. Furthermore, the Crown has not given the claimant any

indication of why the Crown is not calling any Officers involved in GO 2007-70285.


-24-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00[46] It would be prudent to mention at this point, that the way in which information 07-

02500 & 07-02559 were processed is not in accordance with the protocols of the admin-

istration of justice or parliamentary legislation. Mainly, section 504, 506, 788 and 798

of the Criminal Code.

[47] There were no motions filed or attempts made by the Crown, to cure the allege de-

fects in the informations. There is an onus placed on the Crown to ensure the face of

the informations are regular and it contains a positive oath; before the full force of the

law is brought to bear on the Claimant, causing him to unnecessarily be harassed and is

life being unnecessarily destroyed.

[48] Moreover, there was a lot of confusion and damaged caused by the aforemen-

tioned irregularities. This was a foreseeable consequence of actions, unbecoming of a

reasonable prudent Police Officer and runs contrary to the professional standards of law

enforcer and “duty of care” owed to the public by Police Officers.

[49] Asper R. V. McGuffey on page 465;

“"I should like to make some comment on the form of the information taken in this case. Both defendants testify that at the time the information was taken it was distinctly stated and understood that Dunning had no personal knowledge of the circumstances. Yet he takes and is allowed to take a positive oath that the offence was committed, and Mr. Brown, the police magistrate made the somewhat startling statement that he would always take an information in that form from a 'reputable man' although he knew that the informant could only swear to information and belief. This in my opinion is a most reprehensible practice and should not be continued. Section 654 of the Criminal Code provides that 'anyone who upon reasonable or probable grounds believes that any person has committed an indictable offence may make a complaint


-25-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00or lay an information in writing under oath.' If the reasonable or probable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed are anything less than the actual knowledge of an eye-witness the information should be worded accordingly. At least the same care should be taken in this matter as is taken every day in the preparation of affidavits in civil actions....”

...”I observe it is obvious that Parliament intended that the appropriate wording should be used in drafting an information. It appears from the stated case, however, that there was a wilful disregard of the requirements of the statute and that the Crown counsel did not take advantage of the opportunity to have the information amended before the charge was heard. It is my view that the forms prescribed by the statute should be followed, if not exactly at least as reasonably close as possible in the circumstances in any given case. In this particular case there has been a failure to comply reasonably with the provisions of the statute . . . "”

(R. V. McGuffey (1972), 17 C.R.N.S. 393, [1972] 2 W.W.R. 462, page 465)

[50] Asper R. V. Peavoy, on page 100 to 104;

“It is apparent that, as under previous versions of the Criminal Code, the Justice of the Peace endorses the information after he has heard and considered ex parte the allegations of the informant and the evidence of witnesses where he considers it desirable or necessary to do so.

The information is therefore the first step taken, by way of a hearing before a judicial officer, to set in motion the machin- ery to bring the accused before the Court so that the charge can be tried on the evidence that the Crown has available to place before it. This is a safeguard for the citizen to prevent his harassment by the irresponsible laying of charges which would have the result unjustly of bringing him before the Courts to answer a charge to which there is no substance. Other safeguards of a comparable kind in the case of indictable offences are found in the procedure before the Grand Jury in this Province and the procedure on preliminary in- quiry. The safeguards that I have mentioned are clearly not intended to constitute a trial of the issues involved, but merely a determination of the question whether there is some jus- tification for bringing the accused before the Court to answer the charge.

It goes without saying that in swearing an information the deponent is not relieved of the obligation, which lies on any ci-


-26-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00tizen, to swear truthfully; he must not swear to a falsehood. Moreover, in appearing before the Justice of the Peace he must not only 'be truthful, but he must not mislead that judicial officer.

The question with which I am faced is whether the Crown must positively demonstrate, in the discharge of an onus upon it, that the proceedings before the Justice of the Peace were regular in the sense that the oath taken by the informant was true and that the Justice of the Peace was not otherwise misled in reaching the conclusion that he should endorse the information. ...

The Crown's obligation is to place before the Court an information that is regular on its face and that is not to its knowledge otherwise defective. Where a defect exists, s. 732 of the Criminal Code is applicable. ...

The important principle to be 'borne in mind is that a defect in the information once disclosed cannot be allowed to stand. It must be the subject of adjudication and correction if the integrity of the trial is to be maintained. It was the failure to cure what was found at the trial to be a latent defect in form”

(R. V. Peavoy (1974), 15 C.C.C. (2d) 97, page 100-104)

[51] Asper March 30, 2007 Hearing Transcript for Information 07-02559&07-02500;

“MR. NEZIOL: This matter, Your Worship, it might actually be out with the resolution Crown. I can’t recall if this is one of the ones I asked to be sent out but it’s - I - I was going to see if the charges are going - the charges may be withdrawn. I understand that counsel for Mr. Ferron, Mis Halajian, has been in negotiations with the Crown Attorney’s office so...

THE COURT: Well, perhaps he should - perhaps it’s in his best in-terest then just to have a seat and - and let duty counsel sort that out if that’s true. It’s for - sir, it’s definitely worth the wait if there’s a possibility that the charges will be withdrawn. I’m sure you’d want to know that to-day.”

(March 30, 2007 Hearing Transcript; page 2, line 13-26)

[52] Furthermore on page 4 and 5 is stated;

“MR. MANZO: Well, first I’m gonna ask that the charge of impaired driving be withdrawn.THE COURT: Thank you. So we...


-27-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00COURT REGISTRAR: There are two informations, Your Worship so which impaired driving....THE COURT: If the second information is part of that replacement......and then they’ve added the dangerous driving charge on.MR. MANZO: Right. That one’s gonna remain. And the original informa-tion?THE COURT: Is an ability impaired and an obstruct.MR. MANZO: Okay. maybe we should just keep them together till the next appearance because I - the information I received is somewhat - it - it tells me to withdraw the impaired but it doesn’t tell me whether I have to withdraw it on both informations or just the old one. It’s not quite clear to me. And, I mean, it can be dealt with at the next appearance I think.”15

(March 30, 2007 Hearing Transcript; page 4&5, line 18-32, line 1-10)

[53] On the 13th of April 2007;

The Crown disclosed initial Disclosure to the Applicant. The cover page of the said doc-

ument is titled “CHARGE SCREENING FORM

NEWMARKET CROWN ATTORNEY ’ S OFFICE - JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF YORK ”. On

the said document’s cover page is indicated;

• the name of the accused, Wayne Ferron;

• the type of court, adult court;

• the charges, resist arrest and dangerous driving;

• the Crown will withdraw the following charge, impaired driving;

[54] Asper August 3, 2007, Hearing Transcript for Information 07-02559&07-02500;

“MR. BILLINGTON: If I can return to the matter of Wayne Ferron, lines 55 to 59.THE COURT: Yes.MR. HONEY: Thank you, and I’ve had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Ferron. Madam Clerk, I wonder if I could just confirm the charges Mr. Ferron is still facing?COURTROOM CLERK: At line 55 to 56 is impaired operation and resist peace officer.THE COURT: Impaired operation, obstruct police and dangerous operation?


-28-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00COURTROOM CLERK: Yes. The second information is a replacement, Mr. Honey, so the charge that’s added is dangerous operation.”

(August 3, 2007 Hearing Transcript; page 2, line 10-23)

[55] Asper 17th of June 2008, Application Hearing, on page 10 and 11, line 18-32 for In-

formation 07-02559&07-02500;

“MS. GOODIER: Can I actually just point out, sorry...that appears to be in the transcript on page 4 from the 30th of March 2007, because at that point in time, there were apparently two informations before the Court for Mr. Ferron.THE COURT: I see. MS GOODIER: So it looks like it was withdrawn on the one and not on the other that had the added count of dangerous driving on it. That appears to be where the confusion comes in on; just to clarify.”MR. FERRON: But the end result is still the same for me.THE COURT: I’m not sure that does it because the original infor-mation also has it marked withdrawn on the 18th so it’s an anomaly. It should have been marked - given the transcript that Mr. Ferron has, it should have been marked withdrawn, at least on the original information on March 30th.MS. GOODIER: I have no idea.THE COURT: I can’t explain why it wasn’t. Anyway, what comes of that? You’re not on trial for that, you’ve not pleaded...MR. FERRON: Yeah, but if that’s the case - if that’s the case, I have a driving impaired - a driving impaired held over my head for over a year that’s supposed to be withdrawn on March the 30th. I mean - I mean, that wreaks havoc - this wreaked havoc in me being able to earn money, job employment, where I go, where I travel. I mean, that does havoc for your reputation. So why is it there and what’s the purpose of it?”17

(June 17, 2008 Application Hearing Transcript; page 10&11, line 18-32, line 1-22)

CERTIFIED COPY OF INFORMATION 07-02559:[56] The Applicant’s certified COPY of information 07-02559, obtained from the New-

market Courthouse Registrar indicates 3 counts.

Information 07-02559 was filed on March 29, 2007, by informant Peace Officer Joe Willmets (974).count 1 D.W.I./DRUGS --s.253(a) c.c. count 2 RESIST ARREST --s.129(a) c.c. count 3 DANGEROUS DRIVING--s.249(2)


-29-


[57] The informant’s name on the front of the information is JOE WILLMETS and the in-

formant’s signature is JOE WILLMETS. The Justice of the Peace signature is present

for the confirmation date of 29th of March 2007.

a)At the top left hand corner is typed “YORK REGIONAL POLICE OCC#: 07-70285”.

b)At the top left hand corner below “CENTRAL EAST” their isn ’ t a crossed out typo-

graphical error “(1) FERRON, Wayne”

c)At the top center is written in block letters “REPLACEMENT”.

d)At the top right hand corner is typed “Police Case ID#: 3542 Inv. off.: 1079”

e)On the Informant line is written in block letters “Joe Willmets”

f)On the Informant occupation line is typed “REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

PEACE OFFICER”.

g)On the top right hand corner, the Information Number is indicated as “07 02559”.

h)At the lover left corner is typed “Locked Down Date: March 28, 2007 09:13 AM.”

i)On the second to last page, at the left hand corner is written in hand writing

“ ...29th ...MARCH ...2007”

j)On the second to last page, on the Informant line is signed by the affiant Joe Willmets.

k)The line for the Justice of the Peace is signed, however their is no date for the signa-

ture.

l)The Appearance Notice box, Promise to Appear box, Recognizance box, and the

Confirmed on box along with the line for date and Justice of the Peace are all

unchecked or blank.


-30-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00[58] Accordingly, the face of the Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559 indi-

cates that it is sworn by a Justice of the Peace, but the section that provides for the con-

firmation of appearance notice, promise to appear, recognizance by the Justice of the

Peace is completely blank.

[59] Pursuant to DAWSON, J., who granted the defence application and quash the in-

formation in R. v. Ladouceur, 2010 ONCJ 587;

“The defence makes application prior to arraignment and plea for the infor-mation to be quashed due to non-compliance with s.508 of the Criminal Code. Section 508 of the Criminal Code states, 508(1):

A justice who receives an information laid before him under section 505 shall

(a) hear and consider, ex parte,

(i) the allegations of the informant, and

(ii) the evidence of witnesses, where he considers it desirable or necessary to do so;

(b) where he considers that a case for so doing is made out, whether the information relates to the offence alleged in the ap-pearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance or to an in-cluded or other offence,

(i) confirm the appearance notice, promise to appear or recogni-zance, as the case may be, and endorse the information accord-ingly, or

(ii) cancel the appearance notice, promise to appear or recogni-zance, as the case may be, and issue, in accordance with section 507, either a summons or a warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel the accused to attend before him or some other justice for the same territorial division to answer to a charge of an offence and endorse on the summons or warrant that the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, has been cancelled; and


-31-


(c) where he considers that a case is not made out for the purposes of paragraph (b), cancel the appearance notice, promise to appear or recognizance, as the case may be, and cause the accused to be notified forthwith of such cancellation.

{...}There is conflicting authority from the Superior Court of Justice summary convic-tion appeal level. In R. v. Smith, [2008] O.J. 381, the court held that the trial judge was obligated or obliged to quash an information for non-compliance with s.508(1)(b)(i). There was no indication on the face of the information that the process compelling the defendant to appear was ever confirmed by a justice in that case.”

(R. v. Ladouceur, 2010 ONCJ 587, page 1-4)

[60] In the Applicant’s humble opinion, the Informations disclosed to to the Appli-

cant on April 13th 2007; are deceptive and miss leading. The Black’s Law Dictionary on

page 360, defines a copy as;

“An imitation or reproduction of an original” or a less stringent definition of, conform copy, is;

“ An exact copy of a document bearing written explanations of things that were not or could not be copied, such as a note on docu-ment indicating that it was signed by a person whose signature ap-pears on the original.”

(Black’s Law Dictionary, page 360)

[61] There was a significant amount of confusion surrounding the two concurrently ac-

tive Informations and the Crown had failed to disclose proper copies of these informa-

tion in a timely fashion.

[62] it was shown that the copies of Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559

were not valid copied of the filed information according to the definition of the word

copy. In addition to the aforementioned, the Applicant had no personal knowledge of the

respective informants filing Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559.


-32-


[63] Moreover, the Applicant has no recollected personal knowledge that B. HIRD or

BALTAL a Court Security Officer who is legally known as William Hird (6058) by the

YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, was never present for GO 2007-70285. The

Applicant does not believe he knows who the said Police Informant or affiant is, he rea-

sonable believes that he has never personally met the said Peace Officer. Furthermore,

he has been refused the said Informant’s identification for Information 07-02550, partic-

ularly name and Badge number on many occasions for over three years.

[64] Likewise, the Applicant have no recollected personal knowledge that JOE

WILLMETS (974) was ever present for GO 2007-70285. He reasonable believes and

does believe that he does not know nor has he ever met the affiant, JOE WILLMETS

(974). In addition to being denied disclosure of the affiant’s note for Information 07-

02559; he has been refused the said Informant’s identification for Information 07-02550,

particularly name and Badge number on many occasions for over three years.

[65] The aforementioned matter concerning the Information 07-02500 and Information

07-02559, infers a high probability that both Informations contains false oaths and are

rendered null and void by way of a defective jurat.

[66] Pursuant to Ms. Joanne Stuart, Crown’s council at the Court of Appeal for Ontario

after her 9 Months intensive investigation into R. V. Wayne Ferron(C51190);

“(5) The identity of the informant for Information 07-02500; and


-33-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00 (6) The identity of the informant for Information 07-02559

This appears to relate either to your concern about the impaired charge not being withdrawn at an earlier stage or to some sort of allegation of per-jury on the part of the officer who swore the original Information and the officer who swore the amended replacement Information. This task is strictly clerical and based on information provided by the investigat-ing officers. These affiants would not be in a position to provide any relevant information on the issue of the withdrawal of the impaired charge. As for perjury, your accusation is serious and, I believe, seriously misguided. I urge you to speak to duty counsel to get advice about this is-sue as it is incomprehensible the way you have articulated it in your mate-rials. In any event, this is a fresh evidence request, one that was de-nied by Justice Boswell at the summary conviction appeal level, and it is not relevant to this appeal, which relates only to the dangerous driv-ing and resist peace officer convictions. It is the Crown’s position that you are requesting irrelevant information and therefore will not ob-tain this disclosure for you. “

(Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Response to t he Applicant’s Motion for Direction(M 38387) on 27th of January 2010, page 18-19)

[67] This notion set forward by the Crown, of the filing of the Information combined with

the the taking of an oath by the Informant to certify his reasonable belief in the truthful-

ness of the contents of the Information being reduced or degraded to just a clerical ac -

tion strike me as having a total disregard for the importance and purpose of the Informa-

tions, within the meaning of Section 505, 507 or 508 of the C.C., when the full force of

the Administration of Justice is brought to bear on an accused person. The Applicant’s

life, his children's lives, and Canadian’s lives are more than a clerical action, much

more! This notion put forward by the Crown, I find personally offensive when view in the

context of human worth and human dignity.

“CLERICAL ERROR immediately correctable mistake resulting from the copying or transmission of legal documents. As opposed to a judicial error, a clerical error is not made in the exercise of judgement or dis-cretion, but is made by a mechanical or other inadvertence. A clerical er-ror is know by the character of the error, and is not dependent on who makes the error, be it clerk or judge.”


-34-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00(BARRON’S LAW DICTIONARY fifth Edition, page 82)

[68] The Affiant is lending or spending is credibility, his integrity, his reasonable belief

in certifying the allegations to be truthful in the information to which there is conse-

quence if the oath is found to be faulty: to which their is consequence if he is misleading

the Justice of the Peace. If the Informant is indeed taking improper advantage of his po-

sition of authority and a Judicial Officer trust, confidence and jurisdictional authority,

there is consequence. Again, the Applicant fail to see how a task which carries this

much responsibility could possible be “...strictly clerical”.

“Information alleging the commission of a summary conviction of-fence. Summary conviction proceedings must be commenced by laying an information in Form 2 (s. 788(1)(b)). The information must be in writing and under oath (s. 789(1)(a)){...}Laid before a justice. “Laid” means that the written complaint was sworn before a justice (R. V. Southwick (1967), C.R.N.S. 46 (Ont. C. A.)).{...}The informant says that (if the informant has no personal knowledge state that he believes on reasonable ground and state the offence).”

(POLICE OFFICERS MANUAL 2000, page 100)

[69] So the written statements of allegations in the Information along with the oath both

belong to and is own by the Informant in accordance with Form 2 -- Information (section

506 and 788).

[70] Pursuant to the BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY definition of jurat, the signer of the

jurat swore to or affirmed the contents of the document. Which infers that the Informant

is excepting responsibility for the truthfulness of the Information.

Jurat:“A certification added to an affidavit or deposition stating when and before what authority the affidavit or deposition was made. A jurat typically says


-35-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00“Subscribed and sworn to before me this ...... day of [month], [year],” and the officer (usu. a notary public) thereby certifies three things: (1) that the person signing the document did so in the officer’s presence, (2) that the signer appeared before the officer on the date indicated, and (3) that the officer administered an oath or to the signer, who swore to or affirmed the contents of the document.”

(BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, Eight Edition, page 866)

[71] No references to the Informant B. Hird, a Court Security Officer who is legally

known as William Hird (6058) by the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES, for Infor-

mation 07-02500 can be found in any of the disclosed investigative papers or the Offi -

cers notes. Moreover, he was never called or examined in Chief. His Identity (name and

badge number), has not been disclosed on many request. The Applicant is made to be-

lieve that this Officers Operate in the shadows so to speak. This Officer, was a mystery,

and exist in the shadows like a phantom. This said phantom’s name is in-fact Court Se-

curity Officer William Hird (6058), and it took the Applicant over three years to secure

this information.

“Belief of informant - Failure of the informant, who did not have personal knowledge of the alleged offence, to employ the alternative phrase “rea-sonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe” in his in-formation constitutes a failure to comply with the Code and in the ab-sence of the appropriate amendment before the evidence was herd, the conviction must be quashed: R. v. Lepage, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 187, 4 C.R.N.S. 61 (Ont. H.C.J.).

The word “oath” includes a solemn affirmation. Accordingly, an informa-tion which is affirmed is valid: R. v. Netley, [1983] 5 W.W.R. 508 (B.C.S.C.).

There must not be a wilful disregard of the of the statutory requirements of laying an in formation; there need only be reasonable compliance with those provisions. Accordingly, where the informant’s belief was con-clusive within the bounds of reasonableness an information sworn on positive, rather than reasonable and probable grounds, was up-


-36-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00held: R. v. McGuffey (1992), 17 C.R.N.S. 393, [1972] 2 W.W.R. 462 (Sask. Dist. Ct)”

(MARTIN’S CRIMINAL CODE, 2009, page 1548)

[72] In the Applicant’s respectful view, Court Security Officer Informant B. Hird, (who is

legally known as William Hird (6058) by the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES),

had no personal knowledge of GO# 2007-70285 nor did he have any personal interac -

tion with the Applicant, and the disclosed information of the said matter does not indi-

cate that he had personal contact with the complainant; yet he swore a positive oath on

Information 07-02500 when he “Laid” the said information before a Justice of the Peace.

[73] The following short summary of facts is an illustration of the mad rush to investi-

gate the matter before the court after the Applicant was charged, arrested, and an Infor-

mation “laid” before a Justice of the Peace by Court Security Officer B. Hird(who is

legally known as William Hird (6058) by the YORK REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES),

the Informant or affiant for Information 02500. In the Applicant’s humble view, the inves-

tigation should precede the charge, the arrest, and the filing of the information. It would

seem that the investigation for supporting evidence proceed the “Laid” information be-

fore a Justice of the Peace. This is all taking place after the Officers refused or was in-

capable of taking a statement from the complainant, even though they had personal

contact with him for 20 Minutes before the arrest.


-37-


MAD RUSH TO INVESTIGATE GO# 2007-70285:[74] Officer Stribbell’s (529) entered notes into the SHOW CAUSE HEARING REPORT

between 5:00 AM and 7:45 AM on the 28th of March 2007. In this same interval he en-

ters into is notes that the Applicant used crack cocaine in the past.

[75] Asper GO 2007-70285 FOLLOW UP REPORT# 2, on 07March28 at 13:57;

Officer Stribbell (#529) states;

“task D/C Needler #523 and D/C Willmets #974 to get a hold of witness and take statement”

(GO 2007-70285 FOLLOW UP REPORT #2; on 07March28 at 13:57)

[76] Asper GO 07-70285 FOLLOW UP REPORT# 3, on 07March28 at 21:02; #87

Wihce, Robert John;

“contacted -witness, Geoffrey Fardy via phone - he has already prepared a written statement - copy e-mailed to Wiche and copy to alpha file - signed copy to be picked up by uniform”

(GO 07-70285 FOLLOW UP REPORT# 3; on 07March28 at 21:02)


-38-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00[77] Asper GO 07-70285 FOLLOW UP REPORT# 5, on 07March29 at 07:12;

“prosecution Summary updated to add a charge of Dangerous Operation. Replacement information and copy of civilian witness statement sent to court. ”

(GO 2007-70285 FOLLOW UP REPORT# 5; on 07March29 at 07:12)

[78] On the 29th of March 2007, DCst Broughton/DC Stribell filed REQUEST FOR

RECORDED VOICE COMMUNICATIONS G0# 2007-70285 for:YRP222; ASAP; in-

vestigation for the purpose of laying charges; type of incident impaired.

[79] DC Stribbell(529); is the Officer tasked to investigate GO 2007-70285. It is his

name and DCst Broughton’s name, which grace most of the GO 2007-70285 investiga-

tive documents. Moreover the investigative documents or task by these two Officers,

processed by these two Officers and approved by these two Officers. The Applicant al-

leges that DCst Brougton(1079) and DC Stribbell (529) are wanting of credibility and

slanderous; at the minimum they can be shown to be perverting and misleading the

course of justice. It is on these two Officers concatenated invoice for G0# 2007-70285,

which forms the bases or foundation of Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559.

[80] For the aforementioned reasons and the fellowing legal instrument, which states;

FRUIT-OF-THE-POISONOUS-TREE DOCTRINE

“fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine. Criminal procedure. The rule that evidence derived from an illegal search, arrest, or interrogation is inad-missible because the evidence (the “fruit”) was tainted by the illegality (the “poisonous tree”).

(Blacks Law Dictionary, page 693)


-39-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00[81] The Applicant allege that there is a major defect in the jurat, rendering the Informa-

tions 07-02500 and 07-02559 null and void; they were incapable of finding jurisdiction in

addition to 07-02559 failure to find process to give the court jurisdictional authority over

their alleged allegations.

[82] The informants for both informations were-not at any of the hearings, to give evi-

dence; to be examined by the prosecutor, justice or cross examined by the defendant to

cure the allege defects in the jurat and rescue Information 07-02559.

[83] There was no motion by the Crown to amend the replacement information with

leave of the court. Even though over 9 months had passed before the start of the trial

wherein Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559 allege defects could have

been remedied. That is 9 months after the GO 2007-70285 and 9 months after the RE-COGNIZANCE was entered into for Information 07-02500, their was no motion or appli-

cation to remedy defects.

[84] Pursuant to R. V. Lepage, “...Section 654 of the Criminal Code provides that 'anyone who upon reasonable or probable grounds believes that any person has committed an indictable offence may make a complaint or lay an information in writing under oath.' If the reasonable or probable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed are anything less than the actual knowledge of an eye-witness the information should be worded accordingly. At least the same care should be taken in this matter as is taken every day in the preparation of affidavits in civil actions."

(R. V. Lepage, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 187, 4 C.R.N.S.61, page 190)

[85] In the absent of any evidence to the contrary, B. Hird(who is legally known as

William Hird) possessed no personal knowledge with respect to GO 2007-70285 or

C51190. B. Hird(who is legally known as William Hird) took an oath in the positive, when

he should have sworn “ reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does be-


-40-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00lieve”. Furthermore, he certified with his oath and “reasonable belief” the statement

within his Information(07-02500), that was not of his own construction nor based on his

personal knowledge, but instead belong to DC Stribbell and relied on tainted evidence

or false facts in the form of an invoice belonging to DCst Broughton, who are in serious

need of credibility.

“Belief of informant - Failure of the informant, who did not have personal knowledge of the alleged offence, to employ the alternative phrase “rea-sonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe” in his in-formation constitutes a failure to comply with the Code and in the absence of the appropriate amendment before the evidence was herd, the convic-tion must be quashed: R. v. Lepage, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 187, 4 C.R.N.S. 61 (Ont. H.C.J.).”


[86] Pursuant to R. v. Lepage, Information 07-02500 is not a vilid information and is

therefore voidable.

Attorney General may direct stay579. (1) The Attorney General or counsel instructed by him for that pur-pose may, at any time after any proceedings in relation to an accused or a defendant are commenced and before judgment, direct the clerk or other proper officer of the court to make an entry on the record that the proceed-ings are stayed by his direction, and such entry shall be made forthwith thereafter, whereupon the proceedings shall be stayed accordingly and any recognizance relating to the proceedings is vacated.

Recommencement of proceedings(2) Proceedings stayed in accordance with subsection (1) may be recommenced, without laying a new information or preferring a new indictment, as the case may be, by the Attorney General or counsel instructed by him for that purpose giving notice of the recommence-ment to the clerk of the court in which the stay of the proceedings was entered, but where no such notice is given within one year after the entry of the stay of proceedings, or before the expiration of the time within which the proceedings could have been commenced, whichever is the earlier, the proceedings shall be deemed never to have been commenced.R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 579; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 117


-41-


[87] The Crown has laws and legal instruments at it disposal to amend a defective in-

formation, but it chose not to do so. The Crown arraigned the Applicant and proceeded

with the trial without any repairs or amendments to its information.

“Belief of informant - Failure of the informant, who did not have personal knowledge of the alleged offence, to employ the alternative phrase “rea-sonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe” in his informa-tion constitutes a failure to comply with the Code and in the absence of the appropriate amendment before the evidence was herd, the con-viction must be quashed: R. v. Lepage, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 187, 4 C.R.N.S. 61 (Ont. H.C.J.).


[88] Absent of amendments to cure defects in the Information 07-02500 became null

and void, incapable of giving to the Presiding Judge Jurisdiction over the allege charges

on the commencement of the Trial or the arraignment of the applicant.

[89] Pursuant to Section 523(1.1) of the C.C., there is no process for Information 07-

02559 to rely on, since Section 505 and 508 was bypassed and Information 07-02500

is a nullity. Since Information 07-02559 did not find process, there was no process for

the same Information to rely on. Since, there is an absent of process for information 07-

02559 it also became a nullity.

[90] Accordingly, the face of the Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559 indi-

cates that it is sworn by a Justice of the Peace, but the section that provides for the con-

firmation of appearance notice, promise to appear, recognizance by the Justice of the

Peace is completely blank.


-42-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00[91] A prudent check of Information 07-02500 and Information 07-02559 will show and

confirm that both these Information are non compliant with Section 508 of the Criminal

Code;

“At paragraph 10, the Court in Southam Inc. v. Coulter states:

It seems to me to follow from the proposition that a prosecution com-mences only after a justice of the peace has decided to issue process that until that decision is made there is no "accused" within the meaning of s.486(1) of the Code, with the result that the judicial offi-cer's discretion to exclude the public comes into existence in proceedings that occur only after a decision has been made to issue process.

These comments by the Supreme Court of Canada, although not directly on point, give support to the acceptance of the Gougeon and Smith line of authority. If there is no confirmation of the process under s.508 of the Criminal Code, when there is required to be, there is no judicial de-termination that the information is valid, which is an essential step in the prosecution.”

(R. v. Ladouceur, 2010 ONCJ 587, page 14)

[92] Pursuant to Justice Boswell,

“R. V. Ferron, WayneJuly 27, 2009Crown: Mr. P. “(Paul)” TaitAppellant in person

{...}

The summary conviction appeal court can accept new evidence if 4 requirements are met:

I. The evidence must not have been previously uncoverable through the exercise of due diligence.

II. the evidence must be relevant on a decisive pointIII. the evidence must be reasonably capable of beliefIV. the evidence must be such that if believed and when considered with all other evi-

dence, be expected to have affected the result.

In my view, none of the requirements to introduce fresh evidence satisfies the 4 criteria noted above.


-43-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00See R V. Palmer(1980) 50 ccc(2d) 194 (SCC)

1. The impugned informations were before the court at trial. One was with-drawn and is no longer relevant. The Appellant claims the other is deficient on its face. This was an issue he could have, but did not, pursue at trial. In any event, the Appellant has failed to persuade me that the examination of the affiant is necessarily likely to elicit relevant information. “

(Justice Boswell, APPLICATION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE for INMATE APPEAL(07-02559)

[93] The Applicant reasonable believe and does belief that their is no valid Information

which was used or which can be used for prosecution and conviction of the Applicant.

Furthermore, the Applicant alleges that there was never a valid Information or informa-

tions before the lower Courts. The Applicant try to bring this issue forward in is Applica-

tion for fresh evidence before the Honoured Justice Boswell, but his efforts to obtain evi-

dence to prove this was successfully blocked by Crown counsel, Mr. Tait. Yet, The Hon-

ourable Justice Boswell’s endorsement fails to point to parliamentary legislation Section

523.(1.1) or Section 508 or Section 503.(2) or Section 505.(6) of the Criminal Code of

Canada; it is totally absent from his Ruling as being one of the essential statue relied

upon by the Honourable Justice Kenkel for the judgement conviction. Information 07-

02559 is dealt with and referred to as though it is an original Information?

[94] Thus Information 07-02559 never had process and is voidable because it lacks the

ability to give jurisdictional authority over the allege charges in the same information.

So, it is the The Applicant reasonable belief and he does believe that he is being

process by the Criminal Judicial System without the existence of a valid Information to

impart jurisdictional Authority over the allege charges the Applicant is being prosecuted

for.


-44-


[95] In accordance with R. v. Ladouceur there is no accuse before the Courts. If it is

the case that there is no accuse, then how can there possible be a legal conviction of an

accuse person when the accuse does-not even exist legally? So it reasonably fellows

that no legally convicted individual is before the Courts for the Applicant’s matter;

“At paragraph 10, the Court in Southam Inc. v. Coulter states:

...a prosecution commences only after a justice of the peace has decided to issue process that until that decision is made there is no "accused" within the meaning of s.486(1) of the Code, {...} If there is no confirmation of the process under s.508 of the Criminal Code, when there is required to be, there is no judicial determination that the information is valid, which is an essential step in the prosecution.”

(R. v. Ladouceur, 2010 ONCJ 587, page 14)

[96] The mere fact that two information exist from the second day(March 29, 2007), to

the Judgement conviction(September 26, 2008), breeds doubt and uncertainty into the

reasonable objective belief of the Informants for the respective Information and into the

reasonable belief of the Prosecution with respect to the matter before the Court. The af-

fect from this fact is Apparent in the confusion surrounding both concurrently active In-

formations (07-02500 & 07-02559).

[97] Furthermore, this said confusion made its way into the COURT OF APPEAL FOR

ONTARIO and is apparent in the errors of fact in the Crown’s counsel(Ms. Joanne Stu-

art’s), 22 page report from her prudent 9 months investigation into the matter before this

Honourable Court.


-45-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00[98] If the Informants or affiants are not certain about their course of action to meet the

ends of justice and the Prosecution is not certain about their course of action to meet

the ends of justice. Why should the Bench and the public believe in the Information’s

statements of allegations.

[99] The Crown is in denial about March 28, 2007, the date that Information 07-02500

was “Laid” before a Justice. The Crown position appears to be, that Information 07-

02500 is irrelevant. But how can it be void of importance if Information 07-02559 was

dependent or suppose to be dependent upon the process issue with respect to Informa-

tion 07-02500.

[100] Which begs the question, if your argument for merits is based on a defect in the

process or administrative procedure, and Information 07-02559 was prosecuted using

the process issued to Information 07-02500, how can one deal fairly and judiciously with

the issue if Information 07-02500 is ignored and not place before the Appellate

process?

[101] When the Applicant was appealing to the Superior Court of Justice, he was in-

structed not to put both information number on the form because Information 07-02500

was withdrawn. Hence, their was only a need to Appeal Information 07-02559. Thus,

take note of the Crown’s apparent confusion in the following citations.

“1. March 28, 2007 was not listed as an appearance date (I note that this was the date of your arrest and the Information was not sworn until March 29, 2007);


-46-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-002. March 30, 2007 was listed;{...} As there is no record on the Information of you appearing on March 28, 2007 ..., my position is that there were no appearances on those dates and I will not be ordering transcript for those dates. I am still considering my position on the remaining set dates listed above. “

(Joanne Stuart, Crown’s Letter to the Applicant on 14th of May 2010, page 3)

[102] Accordingly it strikes me as misleading and not forward or forthcoming to disclose

a copy of the Informations with copy written on it to an unrepresented Applicant; when it

is not a true copy. It is sterile of the identity of the Informants and Justice commissioner.

Yet the agents of the Minister of Justice still asserts that the accuse had equal opportu-

nity to call these none disclosed nameless informants, who lives in the shadows, in the

closet so to speak. They are mere phantoms until they can be called and give evidence

to support their allegations.

[103] The usually reason of protecting witnesses or informants or affiants or whatever

the case may be, cannot be used to justify this action. The Informants are Officers, and

are required by Law or Police Protocol to give there name and badge number upon re-

quest; this is at the minimum, apart of Police Officers professional duty.

POLICE PROTOCOL“... A York Regional Police Officer: * will provide his or her name and badge number upon request. * who is not in uniform will present proper identification; you may ask to examine the badge and photo identification so that you are satisfied the person is a police officer. ”

(POLICE POLICY, YORK REGION POLICE SERVICES WEB PAGE, page 1)

[104] For the above reasons and other undisclosed factual evidence, the applicant al-

leges Information 07-02559 is not valid and improper. Furthermore, it caused unneces-


-47-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00sary legal harassment, criminalization, stigmatization and irreparable damage to the Ap-

plicant and his children’s life; it is on this bases which the Applicant file his claim and

seek the ends of justice by way of restitution for actionable wrongs committed against

him and his family.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF


-48-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00In accordance with Subrule 25.06(9)(a), the plaintiff claims against Joe Willmets(974),

Informant for Information 07-02559 at York Regional Police Services:

(i) damages for the tort of negligence for violation of professional

duty or breach of statutory duty, for punitive damages of $40

000.00;

(ii) damages for breach of implied covenant of “Duty of Care”, for

punitive damages of $1 500.00;

(iii) damages for misfeasance procurement of Information No.: 07 -

02559, for punitive damages of $ 50 000.00 ;

(iv) damages for Emotional Distress, the causality of irresponsible

filing Information No.: 07-02559 and causing the unnecessary

harassment of the Applicant, for punitive damages of $50 000.00;

(vi) cost of this action, together with applicable Goods and Service

Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.

E-15, as amended.

(vii) prejudgment interest on these amounts at the rate of % per

year from, to the date of payment and post-judgment interest on the


-49-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00above amount in accordance with the Court of Justice Act, R.S.C.

1990, c. C.43; and

Date of issue ......................December ......., 2011

________________________

Mr. Wayne FERRON (Plaintiff)

Wayne FERRON3221 Derry RD. #3

PO BOX 13563Mississauga, ON, L5N 8G5

Tel: 416 420 1353, Email: [email protected]

DATED at Brampton,

The Regional Municipality of Peel,

this ___________ , day of ____________________ ,

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Date: ......................December ......., 2011

________________


mailto:[email protected]

-50-

Court file No.: CV-11-4493-00Wayne FERRON

3221 Derry RD. #3PO BOX 13563

Mississauga, ON, L5N 8G5Tel: 416 420 1353, Email: [email protected]

TO: The Clerk of the Court--RegistrarONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE(Central West Region)

A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVIS COURTHOUSE7755 Hurontario St, Brampton, ON, L6W 4T6

Tel: 905 456 4700

AND TO THE DEFENDANT:

Joe Willmets(974), Informant for Information 07-02559 17250 Yonge ST., Newmarket, Ontario, L3Y 4W5,

1 800-668-0398;


Wayne Ferron -versus- Joe Willmets(974)

Ontario Superior Court of Justice



-51-


(Central West Region)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT

A GRENVILLE and WILLIAM DAVISCOURTHOUSE

7755 Hurontario St, Brampton, ON, L6W 4T6

Tel: 905 456 4700

AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM NOTICE of ACTION issued on

November 21st, 2011STATEMENT of CLAIM served on

December 9th, 2011

Wayne FERRON3221 Derry RD. #3

PO BOX 13563Mississauga, ON, L5N 8G5

Tel: 416 420 1353, Email: [email protected]



Documents

criminalbydesign.files.wordpress.com · Web view2018. 3. 12. · The Applicant alleges that DC Joe Willmets (974) laid before a Justice of the Peace Information 07-02559 and took