Decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Court of appeal for Ontario dismiss the application of motion for leave to appeal:

In the presence of all ingredients to grant to leave, the Court appeal for Ontario dismiss the application of motion for leave to appeal. Please see the Factum for this motion# https://goo.gl/KHhLqX 

In this Factum, I replied every question/ erred in the decision of the Divisional Court and provided the case laws that perfectly matched with this case # https://bit.ly/2tjFeRD . No party in this case argued about applicant victimization in the mind control and experimentation, deprivation in the victimization, fraud activities with regard to bring into the victimization, stereotyped activities of the respondents, prejudiced, historical disadvantage, the decisions of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) that stereotyped/ biased and out of their jurisdiction . Even the respondents agreed that the infringements of the applicant's rights cannot save under section 1 of the Canadian Charter. 

The IPC also failed to submit the court materials including records disputes that the applicant gave the application to the registrar for granting the cost of this motion# https://goo.gl/eQh7S1 . So, no doubt at all, the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario becomes an open partiality in favor of the Deep state/ Secret Society.

So, questions raised, why the Divisional Court dismisses this motion? Is it human mind control & experiment constitutionally valid in Canada? If not; does the Deep state/ Secret Society taken full control over the Court of Appeal? It will be appreciated if anyone can provide me the answer.

Divisional Court finally dismiss the application for judicial review# https://bit.ly/2tjFeRD


                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           HISTORY OF THIS CASE
       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the purposes of due diligence against the applicant victimization, discrimination etc., he requested on March 31, 2015, to the Toronto Police Services Board (“TPSB”) for his personal records. In the decision of the TPSB on April 09, 2015, where the applicant’s request denied under section 17(1)(b), with no communication and/or offer assistance in reformulating the request.  The applicant submitted his appeal dated on April 15, 2015 to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (“IPC”). The appeal accepted by the IPC letter on April 29, 2015. 

The TPSB’s supplementary decision on October 14, 2015 located one record would constitute an unjustified invasion of another individual's privacy, third party (relative) who use the applicant name as a contact person in his family related case. The TPSB also anonymously claimed exemption relates to the investigation of the applicant and withheld it anonymously under the s. 14(3)(b), ongoing investigation. The TPSB’s affidavit to the IPC denies any other records just one, the third party who uses the applicant name as a contact person and confirmed that no involvement with the applicant.

The IPC decision on August9, 2016 and on September 2, 2016 denying the request of reconsideration that confirmed finally no investigation and/or other records withhold by the TPSB and found the search of the TPSB reasonable and no investigations records of the applicant withheld in the IPC decisions. The applicant’s evidences ignored where a  lawyer and also the IPC employee witnessed that the applicant is the under the police investigation. Also, there were one proceeding of the applicant (lawsuit) against the TPSB, Ontario Superior Court- CV- 14-518926, and Court of Appeal- C60609)  that no record located or identified.

The applicant received a record of index at the time of proposed sealing records of the IPC that contains 12 pages of records including two non-convictions of the applicant. The applicant then understood, the TPSB submerged his investigation records in this one record(stereotyped). The applicant requested the IPC to provide him these rest of the records (page 2-12) that his personal records related to the police investigation against to him. The IPC denied and says, the TPSB claimed exemption in the pages.

The IPC served and file the notice of motion for August 14, 2017 and requested three separate order (1) sealing record order for the third party and applicant name who use the applicant name as a contact personal including the copy of the applicant passport and driver license referred in schedule A. In the Confidential records order request for the records page 2-12 of the record index that referred in the Scheduled B. They also seek another order to give the records to the lawyer of the TPSB as enclosed his undertaking.

In the letter confirmation of motion on August 04, 2017, of the IPC seek only sealed order for the part of this record. The honorable judge approved only the part of the records of the third party that the record not associated with this case, even he did not approved the applicant passport and driver license that include in the schedule A. The honorable judge agreed with the applicant concern about the rest of the record. The decision of the honorable judge on August 14, 2017 # http://bit.ly/2wPAchQ

But the IPC drafted the order according to their notice of motion that three orders including confidential order and approved it by the registrar on October 11, 2017.The lawyer of the City of Toronto, representing for the TPSB, who attended in this haring has no authority to attend, as the party lawyer who represent in the hearing must understand the particular recitals of the Order- Rule of Civil Procedure; 59.03 (3) (c).  The undertaking that he provided proves, he does not have any knowledge about the particular recitals of the order. The IPC has not presented in this hearing. I saw and found including all other different occasions that the black lady, registrar of the Divisional court totally biased and directly working for the secret society/ Deep state.

The applicant brought the motion on November 27, 2017 for the amendment or cancels the order as it is not executed by the honorable judge on August 14, 2017 that stereotyped. He also seek a declaration ‘negligent administration of a regulatory regime of the IPCO’ as for the damage under the s. 2(b) of the Charter and serve and filed the notice of constitutional question. The IPC and TPSB attended in the hearing but not submitted any materials even the records disputes and did not answer the constitutional question. But the honorable judge dismissed the motion without see any evidences. The decision of the honorable judge on November 27, 2017 # http://bit.ly/2qwJ22H

In the hearing of this application for judicial review on June 05, 2018, all the matters before the panel judge but they only insulated the IPC decision and erred in the test that in the Baker, that ignored bias of the IPC. In this case law that clearly says “Procedural fairness also requires that decisions be made free from a reasonable apprehension of bias". It also dismiss the notice of constitutional question in the saying, it would not allowed 1st time before the court. But the applicant question is, how does the applicant know before the decisions of the IPC that they are going to infringes the applicants constitutional rights? More over the case law suggest that it is possible and no problem in the raising the question before the Court. The decision of the panel judge of the Divisional Court dated on June 12, 2018# https://bit.ly/2tjFeRD

The decision of the panel judge of the Court of Appeal on September 20, 2018 dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without see the records/ evidences that matter in this case as the IPC failed to serve or file any materials/ records disputes in this motion for leave to appeal. The applicant letter to the registrar, requested cost with regard to non-compliance and negligent of the IPC lawyer but ignored.

The IPC's decisions is biased, unreasonable, stereotyped, lies in the decisions, exceeded the jurisdiction that they failed properly imply their own statutes but infringes the applicant’s constitutional rights, is not accordance of the evidences. The decision of Court of appeal unreasonable and biased also erred in the cost order that allowed $ 1000/ for the TPSB, they never seek more than $500/ against the applicant. Moreover, the TPSB has very little work in this motion with a factum that 7 pages and a authority with on case law and ignored the public inerest. In decision of the Divisional Court cost allowed $ 200/ for the TPSB.