I filed my first supreme court filing to remove the immunity status
that the Court of Appeal for Ontario is fabricating the Commission has
based on White v. Ontario Human Rights Commission in 1999 based on Westlake case in 1971. The Appeal Court is breaching stare decisis
of the Crown Agency Act 1990 and the Proceedings against the Crown Act
1990 and binding case law of Starline Entertainment Center Inc.
v. Ciccarreli 1995. Watch my appeal as it progresses:

http://205.193.81.30/information/cms/docket_e.asp?31438

(Reply) (Thread)

24. The Court below breached the common law principal of natural justice by not considering the appellant’s oral arguments from her factum at #8 (d) of precedent case
law of Starline v. Entertainment Center Inc. v. Ciccarelli. This case like White is also
binding authority in case law which makes it clear that the Crown and its agents can be
sued in tort (pg 8 (c)) as long as the Minister responsible for the agent is also included in the case as in the appellant’s suit: “Section 5 of the Public Authorities Protection Act makes it clear that the Crown
can be liable in tort if its servants or agents have committed a tort. It is also clear that Crown agencies are included under the Act. This was stated in obiter in the
Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 275, 90 D.L.R. (3d) 481, case, which is dealt with below. Both the Ministry of Consumer & Commercial Relations and the Ontario Gaming Control Commission are covered by the statute as long as the requirements are met.”

July 26th Factum of the Appellant, pg 122, Appeal Book and Compendium, Tab 7

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

COURT OF APPEAL OF ONTARIO
Court file No. M33510

Between:
CLAUDETTE LOSIER
Moving Party
-and-
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Responding Party

MOVING PARTY’S FACTUM
PART I – THE MOVING PARTY AND THE COURT APPEALED FROM
1. The moving party is Claudette Losier who commenced judicial reviews to overturn the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s, the “Commission”, June 29th 2005 section 37 dismissals of her complaints at the Divisional Court in Hamilton. The judicial reviews were heard on February 1st 2006 by the Honourable Mr. Aston, the Honourable Mr. MacDougall, and the Honourable Mr. Cameron. The Divisional Court made one judgment with generalized endorsement without any details of direct prima facie evidence of discrimination for #274, #276, #277, #278, #279, #281, #286, #289, and
#290 to dismiss all on February 6th alleging the Commission’s decisions was reasonable.

PART II – THE FACTS
2. My complaint against Watts filed in 2000 was not dismissed under section 34 for being frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith, and was settled in mediation. This is evidence that I am more credible witness than Watts. I was exposed to 2 sexual pictures, where the first was in a room full of managers including VP of Finance Mr. Dan Bowes. There was no incompetence allegations by Watts and they gave me a bonus for my
receivable duties where I maintained about $3,000,000 in Receivables in 2000/2001.

3. Watts retaliated by passing items in this 2000 complaint and my medical letter to to four employers in a row, and these new employers joining in on passing items out of the new complaints to next employer to provoke additional complaints which is gaslighting harassment. The items being repeated are: exposure to sex picture; penis, ass and breast inappropriate gesturing and talk; misaddressing with Claude and others
Honey/Darling; disparaging remarks such as “sucks to be you”, “hi trouble”, “you’re still here”, “whatever”; use of doublespeak to create errors in my work; fuck language; pen clicking tactic; belt fiddling game, people out to get me bantering, etc.

4. I have prima facie complaints against all of my former employers that is being obstructed by the Commission and now the Divisional Court by providing an image process because it does not matter about the truth only matters that they have provided a process. The Commission and the Divisional Court ignored the following material facts which is prima facie evidence of sex discrimination and reprisal continuum: Alice Reid’s sex picture of a couple copulating March 8th 2002 #274; Connie’s penis drawn on the underbelly of the Shriner’s Elephant #276 January 10th 2003; Linda Holland’s Scubee Doo’s tail between a man as an erect penis June 28th 2003 #277; and Sherrie’s naked old lady with sagging breast wearing a thong October 13th 2004 #279. Watts and Mackay validated exposure to sex pictures. Rentway validated sexual harassment in 1995.

(Reply) (Thread)

5. I was subjugated with other sexual vulgar items which is a “course of conduct” with internal complaints at all places of employment and the harassment did not stop. All employers except Laurentide validated these internal complaints: 2 at Watts, 3 at
Mackay, 3 at Xentel, and numerous complaints at Lyman. The Human Right complaints for these 4 employers were not dismissed under section 34 for being frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith. This is direct evidence that this complainant is more credible then these employers put together. The Commission’s section 34 decisions for the reprisal files #281, #286, 289, and #290 is for improper purpose since the reprisal #278 was not dismissed under section 34 and breaches administrative law. Furthermore, Mackay #274 is the only employer in 14 years to allege incompetence in accounting, when Watts gave me a bonus and Rentway gave me two bonuses for my quality work in accounting.

6. Factum for #274 included vexatious conduct of: sex picture; complaint that Watts passed on slanderous information that Mrs. Page changed my words to “people were out to get her”; Mrs. Page bantering word “delusional” and comment of “penis joke in crew book” and of “her large breast during pregnancy asking complainant if she has a
complaint for her”; withholding the sexual harassment policy by 5 months; 3 male coworkers misaddressing her with Watts’ item of “Claude”; Page witnessing one of these “claude” addresses and commits tort of deceit with the Commission of no knowledge; sexual solicitation of “so you don’t want any sex”; two male coworkers attempting to entrap her into leering into their laps including brush by of male coworker’s lap in her face; one repeat of Watts item “sucks to be me”; sabotaging her work to image incompetence that includes use of doublespeak to create errors in her work; withholding benefits, Employment Standards violation claim, etc.

7. I have a prima facie complaint against Mackay #274 with direct evidence of: validation of three complaints of sex picture, Watts passing slanderous information, and the joke of a “hung penis”; withholding sexual harassment policy 5 months; sexual solicitation of “so you don’t want any sex”; January 20th 2003 termination letter with cause of WSIB being denied and allegations not substantiated; December 16th 2002 letter to cancel employee’s insurance benefits; Mrs. Page’s August 20th 2002 letter to the WSIB to mislead that I made no complaints; Mackay’s witness statement to WSIB that Mrs. Page did not know the second joke was sexual; numerous work performance and training on new duties after 3-mth appraisal emails; Mackay’s rebuttal to the Commission with direct evidence of bantering of persecution of “people out to get her” and raise in June 2002 left out of case analysis; Karen Tarpos’ invoices for bookkeeping services of the disarray of books in 2002; Mackay’s statement of defence for Small Claims in 2004 of cause of “ultimately she did not return therefore we had no choice but to terminate her employment”; Mackay’s statement of defence for Superior Court in 2005 of “we deny we wrongful dismissed her”; Mackay’s affidavit of documents with no evidence of incompetence or benefits paid such as sick pay; the successful Employment Standard’s claim for overtime pay withheld by owner in December 2002, etc.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

43. The Divisional Court did not consider civil burden of proof to the facts in part II that I will succeed by more than 51% per the code: "Proving a case on a “balance of probabilities” is a civil burden of proof, meaning that there is evidence to support the allegation that the comments or conduct
“more than likely than not” took place, and that the behaviour constituted sexual
harassment or inappropriate gender-related comments or conduct with the meaning of the Code.” (pg 469)

44. The Divisional Court erred in law that there is no evidence of perceived or real
disability discrimination by Watts passing medical information to next employers per
direct evidence in #274 and #276 bantering “people out to get me” per the code of: “Disability” should be interpreted in broad terms and includes both present and
past conditions, as well as a subjective component, namely, one based on
perception of disability (pg 359); and the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the distinct disadvantage and negative stereotyping faced by persons with mental disabilities, and has held that discrimination against individuals with
mental disabilities is unlawful. In Gibbs v. Battlefords the Court struck down an
insurance plan for employees with disabilities that limited benefits for mental
disabilities to a lower level as compared to physical disabilities. It is therefore the
Commission’s position that such distinctions are prima facie discriminatory.” (pg 361).

45. The Divisional Court did not consider the authority of Cashin that evidence of unfair hearing is refusal to provide the details of the alleged incompetence of disarray of books:“The Court allows Cashin’s application and refers the matter back to the Canadian Human Rights Commission because Cashin was not afforded the opportunity to
know the specific evidence against her and to answer it. The Court finds that the
requirements of natural justice were not met.”
Cashin v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, para underline at pg D/2234, D2235, and D/2236

46. The Divisional Court breach the Charter by disregarding material fact that exposure
to sex pictures at all 5 employers breaches Code section 5, 6, and 7: “an employer who subjects a female employee to any form of pornography breaches section 7 (pg 59); and exposure of a female employee to any form of
pornography or sexual representation violates section 5 because it creates a poisoned environment (pg 43).

47. The Court Below breached the Charter by disregarding the material facts in dispute
of additional sexual vexatious conduct validated in writing is sufficient evidence of discrimination: “sex picture/hung penis” jokes #274, numerous complaints #277, and
complaints of inappropriate touching and comment of Venereal Diseases #276. I was
subjugated to a course of sexual vulgar conduct of: 9 in #274, 20 in #276, 42 in #277, and 20 in #279. This demonstrates arbitrary finding of fact and violation of the Charter by the judicial branch to protect executive branch of government:
“a course of vexatious conduct and comment is necessary to prove harassment under section 7(2)(a) (pg 63); and the Code focuses primarily on the victim, not the intention of the aggressor (pg 62); “course of conduct” suggests more than one incident. Two incidents occurring months apart can constitute a course of vexatious comment or conduct (pg 74); a poisoned work environment caused by the respondent’s unwelcome sexual advances, sexual jokes and innuendoes
constitutes discrimination on the grounds of sex under section 5 (1), as well as
harassment under section 7 (pg 43).

48. The Divisional Court did not consider the authority of the six elements of the
reasonableness test and all these employers fail this test: "(a) it is aware that sexual harassment is prohibited conduct; (b) a complaint mechanism is in place; (c) it acted with alacrity in handling the complaint; (d) it dealt with the matter seriously; (e) it has met its obligation to provide a healthy
work environment; (f) it met its obligation to inform the complainant of its
response. If an employer fails any of the six elements it necessarily fails the test.” Budge v. Thorvaldson Care Homes Ltd

(Reply) (Thread)

49. The Divisional Court’s endorsement is discriminatory: “To deny access to the courts by a person who has filed a human rights complaint would single out such complainant and may violate the equality rights guaranteed under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Denial of court access in such cases would compromise the position of complainants by inhibiting the laying of complaints before the board. It could effectively discriminate against persons who choose to make human rights complaints and leave their jobs by reason of sexual harassment on the job.”Farris v. Staubach Ontario Inc

50. The Divisional Court’s decision is not in accordance with Janzen per facts list in Part II of: “sexual harassment in the workplace may be broadly defined as unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that detrimentally affects the work environment or leads to adverse job-related consequences for the victims; it is an abuse of both economic and sexual power; sexual harassment constitutes sex discrimination within s. 6 (1) of the Human Rights Act.” Janzen v Platy Enterprises Ltd

51. The Divisional Court’s decision is not in accordance with the Code for reprisal per section 8 and 9, and the facts listed in Part II for #274-290. There is evidence of knowledge of prior complaints in both #276 and #277 of coworkers bantering discrimination/human rights in my presence left out of the case analyses: “an internal complaint pursuant to the employer’s harassment policy is sufficient to trigger protection under section 8 (pg. 68); when the respondent’s treatment of the complainant is partly reprisal for contacting the Commission there is a breach of section 8 (pg 67); and where the employer discriminates against a job candidate because the candidate has made a human rights complaint against another employer, this constitutes reprisal under section 8 (pg 68).

52. The Divisional Court’s decision is not in accordance with the Code for reprisal when there is sufficient evidence of material facts of reprisal conduct for #274-290 per the authority of the code for repeating same items because it is in a Human Rights complaint: Claude, sex picture, doublespeak, sucks to be you, whatever, still here, penis, ass and breast talk, etc. Reprisal per the Code is: “section 8 requires an actual or threatened retaliatory act linked to the making of a complaint under the Code. The link can be established in two ways: proof of the respondent intended to retaliate or the perception of the complaint, on a
“reasonableness standard” (pg 67).

53. The Divisional Court did not consider the Code per hearsay evidence: “hearsay evidence should be excluded where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value (pg 146); Uncorroborated hearsay evidence is inherently unreliable, particularly when introduce through the testimony of a party (pg 146); This is particularly true when there is no way of testing the credibility of the evidence and it is highly prejudicial (pg 146).

54. The Divisional Court erred in law as there is evidence of differential treatment at Mackay #274 and Lyman #277 for denied insurance benefits, and at Lyman #277 of withholding training on Lyman duties and passing work to Treena per the code: “does the differential treatment discriminate by imposing a burden upon, or withholding a benefit from, an individual (pg 363);

55. The Divisional Court did not consider the authority of the Code on incompetence: “sexual harassment may justify an employee’s poor work performance (pg. 62).

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

COURT OF APPEAL OF ONTARIO
Court file No. # M33509
Between:
CLAUDETTE LOSIER
Plaintiff
(Appellant)
-and-
NATHALIE RIOUX, GILLIAN GORDON, DIANE OBERMULLER, ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, JOHN DOCHERTY, LORI DANVILLE, SUSAN KOEHLER
Defendants
(Respondents)
MOVING PARTY’S FACTUM
PART I – THE MOVING PARTY AND THE COURT APPEALED FROM
1. The Moving Party is Claudette Marie Losier who filed an appeal heard on February
3rd 2006 by the Honourable Mr. Aston, the Honourable Mr. MacDougall, and the
Honourable Mr. Cameron. The appeal was to overturn order of cost and judgment by
Whitten J. set on August 2nd 2005.

2. This appeal is based on breached natural justice by Whitten J. by unfair motion
hearing on August 2nd 2005 to set aside the stay order of civil proceedings because one
has a Human Rights complaint by VanderWoerd D.J. dated December 17th 2005. Both
Courts below refused to consider stare decisis including test to grant stays breaching natural justice, administrative law and the Charter that stay orders are not necessary with civil suits going in tandem with complaints in processes of Human Rights, Judicial Reviews and Tribunals. The Courts Below did not look at the direct evidence of the Human Rights complaints for Lyman Custom Brokers #SHEY-5ZBQDM and Xentel DM
Incorporated #NRIX-5XMRXS that the defendants in this suit are not the same named
respondents. Therefore there is no Human Rights complaint for the defendants in this
suit to warrant the stay order, and therefore this stay order is final not interlocutor and
there is a right to appeal. The Constitution provides another right to appeal interlocutor
or final orders that are inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and orders
that are discriminatory per section 52.

PART II – THE FACTS
3. I filed a statement of claim against these defendants for conspiracy to injure,
Misfeasance of Public Office and other torts. The intake staff listed as defendants
obstructed the filing when I requested the forms for Xentel DM on July 14th 2003 and for
Lyman Custom Brokers on November 3rd 2003. I advised Ms. Obermuller on July 14th 2003 of my inference that someone at the commission was passing information on to Xentel of my faxes and she stopped my call at this point to speak to her supervisor and never called me back providing me with evidence that my inference was accurate. Ms. Rioux on August 25th 2003 committed tort of deceit verifying my inference again with 2 fabrications that I had no complaint when I advised I was exposed to sex picture to Ms. Gordon on June 19th and later Ms. Obermuller, and that I had a conversation with a Mr. Harris that never happened. The obstruction continued for approximately 6 months for these two employers by Ms Rioux and staff. Ms. Gordon knew of the sex picture exposures in Watts reprisal on July 3rd 2003, which is automatic breach of code 5, and 7.

4. Prior to this suit I had filed 4 Small Claims Suit in Spring 2004 for the same facts in this suit against: Ms. Koehler, Lyman Custom Brokers, Mr. Batcholer (my supervisor), and Ms. Holland (HR manager and Bookkeeper who exposed me to sex picture). Ms. Corbett submitted a motion to strike out alleging no cause of action and to label me a
vexatious litigant in May 2004. Deputy Judge Nairn dismissed motion in September per
Hunt v. Carey test of “plain and obvious” that it was not obvious I had no cause of action.

Ms. Corbett’s motion for this suit is a repeat which will not succeed per Deputy Judge Nairn’s decision that it is not “plain and obvious” I have no cause of action with the facts submitted.

(Reply) (Thread)

5. The defendants from the Commission and Ms. Koehler put forth motions to strike out the statement of claim dated December 17th 2004 to avoid a trial at the same time when I received 4 case analyses fabricating insufficient evidence for 4 prima facie complaints to protect the defendants this suit. Both Lyman and I provided the Commission with copy of Lyman’s Insurance Company’s September 2003 letter denying benefits due to depression which is per the Code prima facie evidence of disability
discrimination.

6. I submitted a response to these motions attaching a copy of Longley v. Minister of Revenue Canada as authority for Misfeasance of Public Office. As a result, Deputy Judge Vanderwoerd made the order to stay this civil suit till the Commission has made a final decision without the parties requesting a stay nor using the test to grant a stay per
case law. I made one objection per fact in law of stare decisis of Kulyk v. Toronto (City) Board of Education that stay orders are not necessary that was not considered.

7. I sought from the Court below on February 28th 2005 an order to set aside the stay order. This motion was moved up to Superior Court of Justice heard on August 2nd 2005 due to apprehension of bias per Deputy Judge Mongeon.

8. The Court below on August 2nd 2005 decided that the order of stay should remain due to Human Rights’ complaints going in tandem and the defendants strong opposition to set aside the stay without discussion of stare decisis nor test for granting stay per the endorsement record. This action constitutes breach of main principal of justice of stare decisis, and therefore natural justice and administrative law.

9. The Divisional Court ignored the material fact in dispute that the defendants are not named in the corresponding Human Rights Complaints and that this litigant is seeking damages against them only civilly per their endorsement record and Justice Aston’s
endorsing Ms. Corbett’s version of the order dated March 10th 2006. This included interest not in endorsement record nor requested on February 3rd 2006.

10. Both Ms. Corbett and Ms. Carroll requested cost in the amount of $1500.00. I advised that the material I received did not cost $1500.00 and if it did I want to see the expenses. Then Ms. Corbett rebutted that she was attempting to recoup some of her client’s cost with other matters which is abuse of process. The judges decided upon $500.00 each with no discussion of interest as per the endorsement record.

PART III – SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
ISSUE 1: Did the Divisional Court erred in law to refuse appeal and moving party’s argument that the stay order is final when the defendants of the civil suit are not the same name party in the corresponding Human Rights Complaints of the same matter demonstrating Institutional Bias?

ISSUE 2: Did the Divisional Court erred in law by refusing to consider rule of civil procedure 2.03 that dispenses with compliance in the name of justice such as a breach of natural justice by fellow judges from the Court below with refusal to consider stare decisis and test to grant stays?

ISSUE 3: Did the Divisional Court erred in law by not applying the top law of the
Constitution section 52 per the applicant’s factum request that allows them to strike or read down a law inconsistent with the Charter such as stay orders, regardless if it
is final or interlocutor, because one has filed a Human Rights Complaint?

ISSUE 4: Did the Divisional Court not have a duty to intervene to ensure a fair judicial process when they have a litigant before them that is unrepresented and does not have a law degree by considering rule 2.03 and Constitution section 52 for breaches of natural justice by Court Below?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

62. The Court below erred in law that the intake staff at the Commission’s actions is not reviewable through the courts per legal argument of: “The decision maker must consider all relevant matters and must not make a decision for an improper purpose. The exercise of any discretion must be a genuine exercise. For example, if a decision maker with discretionary power merely follows the direction of a superior, that is an abuse of such power and is reviewable by the courts.”

63. For the breaches of natural justice and the reasons stated in the Court Below’s endorsement records on December 17th 2004, May 24 and August 2nd 2005, I am requesting that leave for appeal be granted and that this order be set aside. I am also requesting costs for all these unnecessary motions and appeal proceedings filed since my motion on February 28th to all of the defendants and/or to the Hamilton Court House. I respectfully submit legal reasoning by the Supreme Court of Canada’s that based on stare decisis not considered by Court Below that this action demonstrates improper application of judicial conduct and discretion: “Since reasons given by judges for granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions may sometimes be sketchy, there may also be occasional cases where even though no erroneous assumption of law or fact can be identified the judge’s decision to grant or refuse the injunction is so aberrant that it must be set aside on the ground that no reasonable judge regardful of his duty to act judicially could have reached it.” Manitoba (A.G.) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., Book of Authorities,
Tab 11 pg 33


64. The Divisional Court erred in law that they did not have jurisdiction to allow my appeal and set aside the stay order by not considering the Constitution implications per Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, that a stay and immunity status to the
Commission is inconsistent with the Constitution. I refer to legal reasoning of: “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not a statue. It is part of our Constitution.Section 52 underlines the fact that “the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force and effect.”

65. The common law stay orders for civil proceedings in tandem with Charter violations is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, to the extent of the inconsistency, is of no force and effect. The Courts have leeway to strike down this defense tactic to
stall proceedings to avoid future unnecessary arrests of trials for future plaintiffs because they have a human rights complaint which I am requesting in this appeal in the public’s interest:“The courts can either strike down or read down the legislation in question. To strike down is to rule that the law is no longer in effect; to read down is to rule that the law is generally acceptable, but is unacceptable in the case before the court.”Canadian Constitution, Book of Authority, Tab 1 pg 46

March 10, 2006 ALL OF WHICH RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
Claudette Marie Losier (Moving Party)

(Reply) (Thread)

SOCIOLOGICAL JUSTICE IN ONTARIO
based on status and bias not evidence and stare decisis
Introduction
On May 2nd 2006 the Appeal Court of Ontario dismiss my appeal to remove the immunity that Mr. Norton the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission hides behind to breach the Human Rights code 5 to 10. The Appeal Court of Canada ignored binding settled law of the Crown Agency Act and the Proceedings Against the Crown Act 1990 that removes immunity status if servant and agent commit intentional torts. They based their decision on White v. Ontario Human Rights Commission set in 1999 which also ignores these 1990 statutes which removes immunity status that makes this settled law no longer valid. This is how the judicial system keeps in place bad stare decisis and results in the law not advancing to meet the current needs of today's society.

The binding authority in White v. Ontario Human Rights Commission was set in 1973 by then precedent case of Westlake set by the Supreme Court of Canada decision that a Commission body has absolute immunity because the Commission was classed as a 6th category entity. This case was set before the Charter changes in 1982 which allows for government servants and agents to be sued if their conduct is unlawful and removes absolute immunity to suits. The case of White opened up my eyes to the serious problem of sociological justice based on status and bias to protect another branch of government by the judicial system and breach of their impartiality duty. Like me, White too was unrepresented by a lawyer and was not provided with a fair judicial process per the Court of Appeal's endorsement record that has no analysis as to why in 1999 the Court of Appeal did not consider binding authorities of these 1990 acts which contradicts their analysis that the Commission is a non suable entity. This conduct by judges from the highest court in Ontario demonstrates a judicial system based on status and bias called sociological justice and not Jurisprudence model based on evidence and stare decisis. The Canadian public should be concern and lobby for changes that start to scrutinize judges' decisions particularly when they write up generalized endorsement records with no analysis to the material issue in dispute and only consider settled law from one side and not both in the trial or appeal or motion process. The rules of civil procedure 25.7 (3) does not allow for generalized denials by defendants therefore it is my position judges too should not be allowed to write up generalized endorsement records which are evidence of covering up the material issue in dispute and sociological justice.

My thesis of a sociological justice system in Ontario will start with my motion to add Mr. Norton to my suit for committing several intentional torts particularly Misfeasance of Public Office where there is no immunity to suit. This will include my motion and appeal process, and legal doctrine in factums provided to judges from both sides and their generalized endorsement records. The result is the conduct by the judges of only considering settled law from the Minister of Attorney General and ignoring all settled law by the plaintiff. This action then was repeated by the judicial system for this same plaintiff's judicial reviews to overturn Mr. Norton's 9 section 37 decisions of her complaints made on June 29th 2005 after the Ontario Human Rights Commission received her third statement of claim for Misfeasance of Public Office on June 27th 2005. This action was also repeated by the judicial system for this same plaintiff for motion to remove a stay order because one has filed a human rights complaints for a another suit for Misfeasance of Public Office by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and staff.

(Reply) (Thread)

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, and file #M33509 to remove a stay order because one has filed a human rights complaint when stare decisis says it is not necessary and that is discrimination by the judicial system. They are intentionally ignoring material facts and evidence 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 Ontario Human Rights Commission.

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 that 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.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

go to the following links:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2381/ohrc/ohrc1.html?20067
Internal dysfunctions and discrimination reports by staff at the
commission.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2381/ohrc/pietersohrc.html?20067
Selwyn Pieters goes to court to overturn Mr. Norton's and other staff
at the commission's misuse of section 34 and succeeds March 2000!

(Reply) (Thread)

Unfortunately Sylwen Pieters web site has been taken off the internet due to lack of use. I will try to post later some of the items of abuse by the Ontario Human Rights Commission included in his report that includes reports from the UN of violating Human Rights. Regards, Claudette

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Your blog is interesting!

Keep up the good work!

(Reply) (Thread)

I am currently still fighting this matter. In April/May of this year the 3rd employer, Xentel, settled the matter with me and the details are confidential. The Crown and other Employer defendants filed rule 21 motion to dismiss claims fabricating no cause of action and no facts!
I am going into the 7 and 8th day of motion hearing against the Crown
in September which I am told is unheard of being 8 day motion trial. All of these motions should be dismissed per rule 21 for delay of filing these motions promptly. In addition the Crown defendants lie about the excuse that Justice Lofchik placed stay on suits in December 2006 till appeals were completed when the truth is the CRown defendants subverted my Mr. Norton Motion to add him as defendant in July 2006 to October 2006 granted by Justice Harris. Then when October 11th came along cancelled this motion trial to dismiss my claim!!! Also Watts and Mackay defendants received my claim in fall 2004, therefore Justice Lofchik should be dismissing their rule 21 motions and stop protecting them because they are in a conspiracy with the Crown for delusional profiling me, woman who make prima facie sexual harassment and sex discrimination complaints. In addition, Justice Lofchik stated during one sitting of this rule 21 motion that he does not have to abide by the United Nations Treaty or every treaty that Canada signs and in another sitting stated because the Ontario government did not create lesgislation including the UN treaty. Well the Crown sent me their case of Seneca v. Badauria, a Supreme of Canada decision back in 1981 which clearly shows Ontario legislation being the Ontario Human Rights Code that includes the UN Treaty particularly in the preamble of the Code!!!! So why is Justice Lofchik advising me, a litigant unrepresented and without law school training, that there is no law created? Its either an unknown fact to him or intentionally misleading unrepresented litigant hoping she does not know the law and slide one by her! We sat again on August 9th and not only did I advise Justice Lofchik of his error that the Ontario Government did create legislation including the UN treaty but that the Supreme Court of Canada has mentioned the UN Treaty in 2 cases: Seneca v. Badauria, and Slaight Comminications. More to follow on these arguments.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

APPLICANT’S MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT

PART I – STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. In 2000 the applicant filed her first Human Rights Complaints against Watts Industries (Canada) Inc. (“Watts”) as a result of 3 years of workgroup mobbing/gaslighting sexual and psychological harassment that includes exposure to 2 sex pictures. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) refused Watts’ request to dismiss her complaint under
section 34 for being frivolous, vexatious and made in bad faith. We settled through mediation. The applicant’s health was injured with a working misdiagnosis of a delusional disorder and Watts received letter in 2001 with delusional disorder misdiagnosis for benefits. Watts retaliated by defaming my character and passing out information of this medical letter and the 2000 complaint via influencing MacKay MacKay and Peters Limited (“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 . Watts also defamed the applicant’s character with the Commission to gain their participation to obstruct prima facie complaints from referral to Tribunal with Mr. Norton fabricating incompetence per the case analysis for the MacKay complaint and leaving out June 2002 raise in his report .

2. Psychiatrist in Stoney Creek closed the applicant’s file with the working misdiagnosis of a delusional disorder on September 19th 2002 recommending she seek another assessment. The applicant received assessment in October 2002 of anxiety with depressed moods that is acute
and in December 2002 switched her medication to Paxil. She continues to take Paxil as a result of the Commission’s Misfeasance of Public Office since December 2004 to provoke her anxiety condition by obstruction of justice to wear her down emotionally. The Commission staff believe they are above the law to refuse referral of prima facie complaints to the
Tribunal due to misdiagnosis of a delusional disorder, immunity status per White based on Westlake, judicial review process, Human Rights Code sections 34, 36, 37, and 30 (1).

3. The Minister of Attorney General ignored the applicant’s issues in letter sent May 2004 that the Commission was discriminating against her and obstructing justice, and therefore condoning its agents breaking the law and Charter, and using its influence on the judicial system in Ontario resulting in several unnecessary appeals going against stare decisis to harm her financially and emotionally. The Minister of Attorney General refused to do any form of investigation of its agents and never requested particulars in May 2004 demonstrating declining of jurisdiction. This condonation includes retaliation and violation of criminal code 425.1 by both MacKay and the Commission with direct evidence of MacKay’s termination letter . This influence includes a transcriber committing tort of deceit changing Ms. Oh’s (solicitor for the Crown) May 2005 statement for file #1178/04 that the Commission will be making their final decision in August not June 29th. Also, Constable Ley badge #370 intimidating the applicant with false allegations of criminal activity of looking like a woman riding a bike caught on surveillance camera vandilizing a car in August 2005 at the Hamilton Court House after Blaney’s office received Divisional Court Appeal file for #1178/04 of stay order for filing human rights complaints going in tandem. Sargeant DiCesare, Constable Ley’s supervisor, ignored request to see the evidence demonstrating incident was to provoke her anxiety condition similar to practical joke in Wilkinson v. Downtown.

4. The intake staff obstructed 2 complaints in 2003 by more than six months resulting in suit #1178/04 . Then Ms. Waik and Ms. Meadows-Lee fabricated that the applicant had insufficient evidence of discrimination against four employers in a row exposing her to sex picture and other sexual vexatious conduct to protect staff in #1178/04.

(Reply) (Thread)

They left out of their reports validated sexual complaints for 3rd and 4th employers, and prima facie evidence of disability discrimination per the Supreme Court of Canada of an insurance letter denying benefits due to depression by 4th employer. Prior to 2005 six separate complaints were not dismissed under section 34 for being frivolous, vexatious or in bad faith and is evidence of the applicant’s credibility over these employers. The applicant is experiencing a public humiliation campaign by Watts since 1998 using gaslighting entrapment tactics with continuous subjugation of sexual vulgar conduct to get her to condone sexual vulgar conduct and/or image delusional disorder with the Commission supporting these employers’ sexual poisoned work environments. The Commission is aware that entrapment is abuse of process.

5. Mr. Norton reconsidered all of my complaints due to my allegations of sham investigation then continued this obstruction on June 29th 2005 with 9 section 37 decisions after the Commission was served with the appellant’s third statement of claim file #05-18300 on June 27th 2005 . Mr. Norton’s June 29th decision is an act of retaliation per section 8 of the code and the criminal code 425.1.

6. The investigation staff slanted their report for MacKay to image incompetence to obstruct justice when MacKay is not using this defense civilly defaming the applicant’s character at: #6, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #30, and #31 . At #30 Ms. Meadows-Lee submits a defamatory opinion to influence readers of her report that “had she returned she would not have been able to perform her duties.” The applicant started employment at next two employers on January 10th and February 20th 2003 and was terminated by MacKay on January 20th. In a 14 year work history MacKay is the only employer fabricating incompetence in accounting duties. Ms. Tarpos completed all books while the applicant was
employed at MacKay and was training her in August on first set of books of the month of June when she went on sick leave ignored by commission staff and Mr. Norton.

7. The MacKay complaint is prima facie sex discriminatory per the facts: exposure to sex picture and sex joke of hung penis within a month validated; Mrs. Page’s August 20th 2002 letter to WSIB fabricating I made no complaints before requesting WSIB claim in August ; Mrs. Page’s WSIB witness report that she did not know penis joke was sexual in nature demonstrating no investigation and did not take the complaint seriously ; one sex solicitation comment of “so you don’t want any sex” from Les

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Hi, my friends! I want to get program XRUMER 5.07 Palladium free. Any link?
I'm so need this magic program! It's can break captchas automatically! Activate accounts via email automatically too! Absolutely great software! Help me!
And did you hear news - price for XRumer 5.0 Palladium will grow up to $540 after 15 may 2009... And XRumer 2.9 and 3.0 - too old versions, it's cant break modern catpchas and cant break modern anti-bot protections. But XRumer 5.0 Palladium CAN!!!!
So help me for download this great program for free! Thanks!

(Reply) (Thread)

Zeno What Medication http://www.justkitchencabinet.com/ - lexapro sale It can be hard going through life with depression. [url=http://www.justkitchencabinet.com/]lexapro online[/url]

(Reply) (Thread)

Pimobendan Medication http://www.musicinmay.com/ - order carisoprodol When we get the proper amount of sleep we are ensuring that our antibodies are doing their job to protect our body. [url=http://www.musicinmay.com/]buy cheap soma[/url]

(Reply) (Thread)

Hi,

I'm new here on this forum I've been a very long time lurker and now have a very relevant problem that i expect some of you gentlemen can sort out.

I became on the look to find a few trustworthy and trusted offshore company incorporation agent, since I live in Southern spain and don't want to pay the high taxes here than I went using Costa Rica Corporation, will not likely post a link in order to avoid to become viewed as junk, now they told me that for my requirements I can not use them nonetheless rather could consider looking at some incorporation within another offshore jurisdiction for example Cyprus, at this point I noticed the website http://www.web-chamber.com that is actually an interesting blog which has a lot of information regarding this particular topic, just what interest me is actually, if a few of you are able to let me know just how I can help to eliminate my taxes without having going the offshore way or if Cyprus definitely has become the area I would look for ?

My requirements are generally to pay a minimal taxes probable, require bank account along with internet banking and a offshore merchant account to accept credit card payments for my Footwear shop.

With thanks beforehand.

(Reply) (Thread)

[url=http://mybifoldclosetdoors.com/]bifold closet doors[/url]

(Reply) (Thread)

pbkf lpola miasporn (http://www.miasporn.com) pxekaz c tk k bfj

(Reply) (Thread)

Godlike article it' s extraordinarily undisputed, i thinks fitting scrutinize it! Acutely humane article and blog, poker is kind-hearted to !
[IMG]http://www.sedonarapidweightloss.com/weightloss-diet/34/b/happy.gif[/IMG]

(Reply) (Thread)

Hey there

I would like to share with you more about travelling. I love it very much. I journey a lot, almost in a wink a month and stay many towns and countries. Unified of the most beautiful cities I dictum pattern point is Krakow. This burg is in fact superb. You can set there a a mountain of restaurants, absorbing places to fall upon and absolutely you liking unearth remember to sleep.

In details accommodation in Krakow is harmonious of the best from Gleam cities so when you go to Poland and prerequisite to find comfortable accommodation you sooner a be wearing to be appropriate to Krakow. If [url=http://www.noclegi-apartamenty-krakow.com.pl]kraków apartamenty[/url] is not refractory throughout you, you on as likely as not clear interested that a destiny of compelling places that are for sure worth visiting - archaic churches, old buildings, restaurants. Of performance you find in Krakow also uncountable places to lead shopping if you in point of fact need.

I've been to Krakow twice and I hope to reach there next week with my girlfriend. I think you should also ho there

A-one regards

(Reply) (Thread)

Beneficial!!! Bookmarked this folio that has this uncommonly data d fabric facts. Will on aid to last if there are any updates. You, the author, are a master. Thanks
[IMG]http://www.sedonarapidweightloss.com/weightloss-diet/34/b/happy.gif[/IMG]

(Reply) (Thread)

IT"S AWESOME!!)) at the last second of this video THERE IS SUCH A FUN)
http://rutube.ru/tracks/4113820.html?v=e56227a8dc929bd09a41f4b14a05100e

(Reply) (Thread)

Cупер статья.Очень хорошо и подробно вы описали, спасибо.

(Reply) (Thread)

I heard only nice things about this movie what do you think about it? You`v seen it? I know it was seen for free on free webcam sites. I will put a review of it on my web blog the free cams (http://thefreecams.wordpress.com).

Best Regards, Alicia

(Reply) (Thread)

Hello, I new yours frient on this forum)

(Reply) (Thread)

Thank you, I come back

(Reply) (Thread)

864285

(Reply) (Thread)

[b]NATO is taking over command of military operations in Libya from coalition forces, world media reported Sunday.[/b]

The UN Security Council imposed the no-fly zone over Libya on March 17, along with ordering "all necessary measures" to protect civilians from Muammar Gaddafi's attacks on rebel-held towns.

The 28 NATO ambassadors met on Sunday to decide on further military plans in Libya.

The United States transfers command for a no-fly zone over Libya to NATO, while coalition forces will continue to protect civilian population from attacks by Gaddafi forces.

The military operation in Libya, codenamed Odyssey Dawn, has been conducted so far jointly by 13 states, including the United States, Britain and France.

NATO members decided on Thursday to assume responsibility for the enforcement of a no-fly zone in Libya, but could not agree on taking full command of all military operations in the country.

Meanwhile, leaders of the 27 European Union states on Thursday issued a statement saying the EU stood ready to assist in building a new Libya "in cooperation with the United Nations, the Arab League, the African Union and others."

MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti)

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110327/163235937.html

(Reply) (Thread)