| Sociological Justice System in Ontario based on Status and Bias |
[Jun. 20th, 2006|05:09 pm] |
On June 12th 2006 the Appeal Court of Ontario refused leave to appeal file #M33510 the Divisional Court’s dismissal of my prima facie Human Rights Complaints on February 6th 2006. They are intentionally ignoring material facts which is prima facie evidence of sex discrimination and reprisal: Alice’s sex picture of a couple copulating from rear March 8th 2002 #JR274 employer Mackay; Connie’s penis drawn on the underbelly of the Shriner’s Elephant #JR276 January 10th 2003 employer Xentel DM; Linda Holland’s Scubee Doo’s tail between a man as an erect penis June 28th 2003 #JR277 employer Lyman Custom Brokers and Freight Forwarding; and Sherrie’s naked old lady with sagging breast wearing a thong October 13th 2004 #JR279 employer Laurentide Manufacturing. The Appeal Court’s conduct is discriminatory and demonstrates that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has defamed my character with the judicial system because I filed Misfeasance of Public Office suits against the Human Rights Commision.
The Ontario Judicial system is protecting the executive and legislative branches of government per my whistleblowing suits #1178/04, #04-13797 and #05-18300 at the Hamilton Court House. This Misfeasance at the Ontario Human Rights Commission started with Ms. Rioux obstructing 2 complaints in 2003 resulting in #1178/04 for Xentel Dm and Lyman Custom Brokers and Freight Forwarding complaints. Then Ms. Waik and Ms. Meadows-Lee in the investigation department provide sham investigation of four complaints: because it doesn’t matter about the truth it only matters that they have provided an accepted process so that when you say they disadvantaged you they can say they followed an established process e.g. 'full' investigation and mediation. They fabricated that I had insufficient evidence of discrimination against four employers in a row exposing me to sex picture automatic breach of code 5 and 7 to protect Ms Rioux and staff in #1178/04 resulting in suits #04-13797 and #05-18300. They left out of their reports validated sexual complaints for 3rd and 4th employers and prima facie evidence of disability discrimination.
Prior to 2005 six separate complaints were not dismissed under section 34 for being frivolous, vexatious or in bad faith and is evidence that I am more credible then these employers. Then in 2005, Mr. Norton, then Chief Commissioner, misuses section 34 fabricating vexatious complaints against fifth employer Laurentide and the corresponding reprisal complaints. Evidence of improper purpose by Mr. Norton is the material fact that Laurentide is my employer reason why this complaint was same as Kinros (owned by Laurentide) and I requested Ms. Rioux to file one complaint to include Kinros and Laurentide. Ms. Rioux requested the section 34 allegations of vexatious in 2005 which is conflict of interest and retaliation when I have a suit against her #1178/04. Mr. Norton then continued the obstruction of justice on June 29th 2005 with 9 section 37 decisions after the Commission was served suit #05-18300 on June 27th 2005.
Background to Sociological Justice:
In 2000 the applicant filed her first Human Rights Complaints against Watts Industries (Canada) Inc. as a result of 3 years of workgroup mobbing/gaslighting sexual and psychological harassment. I was exposed to 2 sexual pictures, where the first was in a room full of managers. The Ontario Human Rights Commission refused Watts’ request to dismiss my complaint under section 34 for being frivolous, vexatious and made in bad faith. We settled through mediation for $10,700 and Watts retaliated through 4 employers in a row passing information of medical letter and Human Rights Complaint. I am target of Watts’ public humiliation campaign since 1998 using gaslighting entrapment tactics with continuous subjugation of sexual vulgar conduct to get me to condone sexual vulgar conduct and/or image delusional disorder with the Commission supporting these employers’ sexual poisoned work environments.
My health was injured with a working misdiagnosis of a delusional disorder and Watts received letter in 2001 with delusional disorder misdiagnosis for benefits. Psychiatrist in Stoney Creek closed my file with the working misdiagnosis of a delusional disorder on September 19th 2002. I received another assessment in October 2002 of anxiety with depressed moods that is acute. In December 2002 I switched my medication to Paxil. Watts retaliated by defaming my character and passing out information of this medical letter and the 2000 complaint via influencing MacKay, then three other employers to repeat same items particularly sex picture exposure and bantering of a disability of delusional disorder which is gaslighting harassment. These new employers joining in on passing items out of the new complaints to next employer to provoke additional complaints by going through the list of items that I complain about which is a continuation of gaslighting harassment to create conflict with next employer and terminate my employment to get rid of complainer.
The Fifth employer, Kinros, stated in their rebuttal to the Commission stated they have no knowledge of any of these items nor any of my verbal or written complaints while I was employed and only received second complaint letter after my termination is direct evidence of a cover-up of Watts’ and the other employers’ conspiracy. I received direct evidence of validation of internal complaints of: 3 at Mackay, 3 at Xentel, numerous complaints at Lyman, 2 at Watts and 1 at Rentway in 1995. That’s a lot of validation that the Courts Below and the Commission are concealing in their generalized endorsement records and section 37 decisions.
Stay tune for Supreme Court of Canada Filings 3 appeals obstructed by Ontario Court of Appeal and note there is no sealing ban on this public matter! |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
losierwhistlebg's journal