Will the Court take action against Heather PUChala

In a Notice of Appeal dated March 31, 2011 filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court Bradley James Charlton setout his first ground of appeal as follows: “The Honourable Madame Justice Morissette erred in law by dismissing the appellant’s motion for a restraining order, since the Family Responsibility Office First Notice to the appellant did not grant the appellant the thirty days notice required under statute for the appellant to seek a refraining order (Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996 S.O.. c. 31, s. 34m s, 35(10), 35(11)l 35(12) and 25(13).)”

That ground is supported two decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal both dated MARCH 5, 1001 the first is found http://canlii.ca/t/1fbrw McLarty v. Ontario (Family Responsibility Office, Director) heard January 12, 2001 before WEILER, LASKIN and CHARRON JJ.A. the second is found http://canlii.ca/t/1fbp2 Adubofuor v. Ontario (Family Responsibility Office, Director), 2001 CanLII 24013 (ON CA) also heard before WEILER, LASKIN and CHARRON JJ.A. also heard January 12, 2001 both unanimous reasons for judgment were released by Laskin J.A.


At paragraph 20 of the first case Laskin J.A. wrote: “Therefore if Mr. McLarty had failed to advise either the Director or the Registrar of his new address by the time that the First Notice was sent, the FRO could not be faulted for serving Mr. McLarty at his old address. Service under the statute would still be valid. However, when the payor disputed service, the Director is obliged to prove service. The Director must file affidavit evidence that the First Notice was sent to the payor by ordinary mail to the payor’s most recent address in the records of the Director and if different, to the payor most recent address in the record of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, as is required by s, 17.1 of the regulation. In this case, even though Mr. McLarty claimed that he had not been served, the FRO filed no proof of service on the application before Sedgwick J. Because the FRO did not file proof of service, the Director cannot maintain the suspension of Mr. McLarty divers’ licence. Requiring the FRO to prove service when a defaulting payor disputes service is consistent with the case law under the Rule of Civil Procedure requiring a plaintiff to prove service of an originating process when a defendant disputes service. See Ivan’s Film’s Inc. v. Kostelac (1989), 29. C.P.C. (2d) 20 (Master).”
At paragraph 30 – Conclusion: I would allow the appeal in part, by setting aide the motions judge’s order and in its place ordering the Director to direct the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to reinstate Mr. McLarty’s licence.”

At paragraph 13 of the second case Laskin J.A. wrote: The FRO should also have filed am affidavit attesting to Mr. Adubofuor’s most recent address in records of the Director and of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. However, the evidence before the motions judge shows that the most recent address was the address to which the First Notice was sent. Because Mr. Adubofuror was served with the First Notice in accordance with the Act and the regulation, he cannot avoid the suspension of his driver’s licence by the bare assertion that he did not receive the notice. Cogent evidence would be required to rebut service that complied with the legislative regime.

At paragraph 16 in his conclusion Laskin J.A. wrote: “Accordingly, I would allow the appeal, set aside the order of the motions judge and dismiss Mr. Adubofuor’s motion for reinstatement.”

These two decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal speaks of the requirement of compliance with the legislative regime, When Mr. Charlton perfected his appeal on or about November 22, served and filed the required document with the Court and ask the Court to reinstate his licence because of the failure of Director of the Family Responsibility Office to comply with the legislative scheme, the Divisional Court was duty bound pursuant to section 29 of Magna Carta to order the reinstatement of his licence and adjourning the remainder of the relief sought by the Notice of Appeal to give counsel for the respondent a chance to address the other issues raised by the Notice.

Magna Carta s. 29 clearly stipulates: “we will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Rights.”

Vinnini, L.J.S.C, Ontario Supreme Court of Justice [High Court of Justice] in an October 17, 1987 judgment in Ronncato et. Al. v. O’Brien et al. 17 C.C.E.L. 290 at 295 addressed to guaranteed Magna Carta protections as follows: While s. 15 of the Charter protects the right of access to the Courts for the enforcement of one’s civil rights, the right itself is guaranteed by Magna Carta, 1297 (U.K.) 25 EDW. I ) c. 29” and then continues: “These then are the rights that exist outside of the Charter and that are preserved by s. 26 and protected by s. 15 of the Charter.”

Very strong words indeed and it is to the Divisional Court credit that when Mr. Charlton Appeal was brought before the Court it acted promptly to restore his licence.

===============================================================

Email that Mr. Charlton bought to my attention indicating that he had served and filed the documents pertaining to his appeal

True copies of Email exchanged between Mr. Brad Charton and Guy Babineau indicating that documents were served on the respondent and filed with the Court. The clock on the email is off by a few hours:

RE: How did it go today
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 7:53 AM
From:
"Brad Charlton"
View contact details
To:
guy_babineau@yahoo.com
Not sure... I can only have my appeal heard in front of Divisional Court if the FRO waives its right to 30 or 60 (the court wasn't sure how long) days that they have to respond to my perfected appeal.

My only other option, I believe, is to file a motion asking the DC to stay enforcement of the FRO powers pending the hearing of my appeal. The Court, as I understand it, could then order my licence to be reinstated pending the hearing of my appeal in April - which is the next time the DC meets in London.

Brad




"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."
— Martin Luther King Jr.

________________________________________
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:23:37 -0800
From: guy_babineau@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: How did it go today
To: bradcharlton69@hotmail.com
When will you be appearing?

--- On Tue, 11/22/11, Brad Charlton wrote:

From: Brad Charlton
Subject: RE: How did it go today
To: guy_babineau@yahoo.com
Received: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 9:48 PM
I got it sworn, served and filed.

Brad




"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."
— Martin Luther King Jr.

===============================================

Copy of my December 16, 2011 letter addressed to Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler deploring the conduct of Heather Punchal, counsel for the Director of the Family Responsibility Office as an officer of the Court and requesting that her refer the matter to the Law Society of Upper Canada

GUY BABINEAU
712-255 Main Street
Toronto, Ontario
M4C 4X2


December 16, 2011



Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler
130 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N5

HAND DELIVERED: December 16, 2011

Re: The Director Family Responsibility Office Motion to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court returnable on Tuesday December 20, December, 20l 2011 at 10:00 or as soon after that time as the motion can be heard at 90 Dundas St., London, Ontario in the style of cause Bradley James Charlton and Director, Family Responsibility Office.__________________________________________________________________

This letter to be hand delivered later today is delivered ex parte without the knowledge of either party as amicus curie. The attached Motion of Heather Puchala, Counsel for Family Responsibility Office, 1201 Wilson Ave., Bldg B, Downsview, Ontario, M3M 1J8, T: 416-240-2486; F: 416-240-2402: Email Heather.Purchala@ontario.ca dated December 7, 2011 and Affidavit of David Hatwick of the city of Toronto is an employed by the Director Family Responsibility Office (FRRO) as an enforcement officer under s. 3 of Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act was sworn on December 8, 2011, before Heather Puchala, Lawyer and Commissioner for taking Oaths and Affidavit. These documents were emailed to me by Mr. Charlton and I have reasons to believe that they are true copies excluding the missing exhibits to the affidavit.

In Paragraph 9 David Hartwick states: A Confirmation of appeal of Bradley Charlton was copied from the court file 1898/11. It confirmed that a motion will be proceed on November 25, 2011 for a hearing on the reinstatement of the driver’s license of Bradley Charlton. It referees the presiding judge to the Appeal book and Copendium, the Exhibits book and the Factum of Bradley James Charlton. It does not appear that any hearing occurred November 25, 2011.

Attached is copy of email exchanges between Mr. Charlton and myself between November 22 and 23 and because of the error on the email timing on my computer I have reasons to believe and verily believe that all those email were sent and received on the 22nd of November 2011. I have known Mr. Charlton for some five years and visited him on a number of occasions and if he states that he has served those documents, he did.

Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler
130 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N5

If on the face of those documents it is demonstrated that Family Responsibility Office did not abide by the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding the suspension of his licence, then the Divisional Court was duty bound to reinstate it pending the disposition of this appeal scheduled for sometime in April 2012. As Chief Justice of Ontario you should direct the Chief Justice of Ontario Court of Justice who will direct a Judge hear the motion on behalf of the Divisional Court to refer the conduct of lawyer Heather Puhala to the Law Society of Upper Canada because he has violated his duty as an officer of the Court.

This letter will be sent to the Madame Chief Justice Heather Smith and copy to the member of the Canadian Judicial Council and be part of my blog Access to Justice http://accesstojustice70.blogspot.com the exclusions of the documents. This letter including the letter to Madame Justice Heather Smith will be email to both Ms. Heather Purchala and Mr. Brad Charlton excluding the court documents filed butt including the email exchange between Mr. Charlton and I.


Respectfully yours


Guy Babineau


Encl

===============================================
I Have also attached copy of my December 16, 2011 addressed to Madame Chief Justice Heather Smith of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and Divisional Court:

GUY BABINEAU
712-255 Main Street
Toronto, Ontario
M4C 4X2


December 16, 2011


Madame Chief Justice Heather Smith
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Divisional Court
130 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N5

HAND DELIVERED: December 16, 2011

URGENT

Re: The Director Family Responsibility Office Motion to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court returnable on Tuesday December 20, December, 20l 2011 at 10:00 or as soon after that time as the motion can be heard at 90 Dundas St., London, Ontario in the style of cause Bradley James Charlton and Director, Family Responsibility Office.__________________________________________________________________


Please find attached copy of my letter of today addressed to Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler which is self explanatory. It is hope that the Judge that you will appoint to hear the above matter on December 20, 2011 will see fit to dismiss the above referred matter as frivolous, vexation and as a abuse of due process and refer conduct of this lawyer to the Law Society of upper Canada for bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.


Copy of this letter will be sent to the Mr. Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler and to members of the Canadian Judicial Council and be part of my blog Access to Justice http://accesstojustice70.blogspot.com with the exclusions of the court documents. This letter including the letter to Mr. Justice Warren Winkler will be email to both Ms. Heather Purchala excluding the court documents filed butt including the email exchange between Mr. Charlton and I.


Respectfully yours


Guy Babineau

===============================================

In closing I would like to add that after the documents were filed, Mr. Charlton informed me on a number of occasions that those responsible for reading the document that he had served were telling him that they had not done so.

Will Justice be served on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 and appropriate steps taken to ensure that Ms. Heather Puchala and the Director of The Family Responsibility Office are properly put in their place.

Past Family Law Corruption

After writing to Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler of the Ontario Court of Appeal and Madame Chief Justice Heather Smith of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the form of aniicus curie regarding a motion that a lawyer was bringing before the Divisional Court on Tuesday, December 20, 2011, it was later brought to my attention that I have been appointed as one of the administrator of a facebook group Past Family Law Corruption that was just being started by an associate which I met on a number of rallies held on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC. I addressed both the 2010 rally and a rally held earlier this year in which I had also taken part in a congressional education panel sponsored by Congresswoman Fudge of Ohio. It was indeed an honor to be part of another American Organization If anyone wants to get involves in Past Family Law Corruption you can get started at the following link

http://www.facebook.com/search/results.php?q=Past%20Family%20Law%20Corruption.&init=quick&tas=0.39662268225758257&search_first_focus=1324116512312#!/pages/Past-Family-Law-Corruption/278739865477195

I know how dedicated some of the founders of that groups are and I would recomend anyone joining force so that changes can be made both here in Canada and to my many dedicated American friends who share a common goal.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE BLOG REACTIVATED

On June 5, 2009, I published my first blog entitled Access to Justice According to Guy Babineau in this first blog I provided a link to the transcript of my September 14, 2006 oral presentation before the Standing Committee on Justice Policy when Bill 14—Access to Justice Act, 2006 was hearing public submissions. The link to my presentations is found at:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee-proceedings/committee_transcripts_details.do?locale=en&Date=2006-09-14&ParlCommID=7429&BillID=284&Business=14#P892_256087
When the government refused to address the concerns that I an other were raising, I brought an application for judicial review before the Divisional Court to put in question the government action and the role that the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario was duty bound to play pursuant to constitutional dictate that place a restriction on his exercise of discretion to assent the Bill into law. My application for judicial review is found at:

http://www.pscanada.ca/main/content/view/15/1/

On October 9, 2009, A.C.J.S.C. Cunningham in an oral ruling dismissed my application (Swinton and Smith JJ. concurring). The link to that decision is http://canlii.ca/t/264hp

Being hard of hearing, I had requested the assistance of a real time captioning who was also a court staff that acted as court reporter but came late and could the audio for the court reporting were not setup during the hearing and she lack the experience and expertise to properly address my need. Her lack of the appropriate understanding of the French language made in impossible for her to transcribe what was said by Mr. Justice Smith when he address me in that language. Normally I receive upon request copy of the captioning report but the Divisional Court has refused to provide it to me. The lack of audio recording of the proceeding make it impossible for me to demonstrate that the Judges did not take into account all relevant factors in reaching their ruling as mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. I would question the accuracy of the captioning report and that is probably amongst the reasons that the Divisional Court has refused to provide me with copy of that captioning report that has never been refused to me by provincial tribunals.

Base on this I refused to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal because that Court can refuse leave without reasons and the policy of the Supreme Court is not to interfere with that discretionary exercise except in one instances when the Supreme Court was caught with its pans down because the Manitoba Court of Appeal had granted leave to appeal from a lower court decision while the Quebec Court of Appeal had refused to grant leave when similar issues were before the Court.

NOW HARRY KOPYTO IS CHALLENGING THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA AND LAWYERS’S VICTIMS STAHD BEFIND HIS QUEST FOR AFFORDABLE JUSTICE BY SEEKING TO BREAK LAWYERS MONOPOLY

Harry Kopyto was disbarred in 1989 and the reasons for his disbarment will come clear as he is force to establish his good character as he is seeking to be grandfathered in as a paralegal. He questioned the Brights Panel on constitutional grounds and her panel refused to address the matter.

Even though the Supreme Court of Canada has rule that the first prerequisite in the exercise of discretion must be that the court establish its jurisdiction. He brought an application for judicial review and the Divisional Court refused to entertain his application. http://canlii.ca/t/fnlm6

Unlike me Kopyto is seeking leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal in his motion he is seeking the following:

1. An order granting leave to appeal from the decision of the Divisional Court sitting in Toronto made October 11, ,2011 dismissing the Applicant motion for an order for mandamus with certiorari in aid;
2. Cost for this motion;
3. Such further and other order as this Honourable Court may deemed just.

Razes the following three grounds;

1. The Divisional Court erred in law by failing to grant the mandamus application to have the Law Society hearing Panel deal with a jurisdictional challenge to its legal authority to adjudicate;
2. The learned Divisional Court erred in law by finding that the Panel rightly concluded that it could not deal with the matter because of institutional incompetence.
3. Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.
Very interesting motion indeed considering various Supreme Court ruling that the Divisional Court seems to have ignored.

As a footnote It was Swinton, J (concurred by Hoy and Lauwers JJ. who delivered the oral judgment a Judge that concurred with A.C.J.S.C Cunningham in my application.

Kopyto further protected himself by filing a Statement of Claim with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. His Statement of Claim is far reaching but took a some one different approach as I did in my application for judicial review.

A. An order for a declaration that By-law 4 of the Law Society Act and the Law Society decisions and actions pursuant to such bylaw constitute an anti competitive act” as defined by section 78(1) of the federal Competition Act;
B. An order for a declaration that the LAW Society has abused its dominant position as defined under the federal Competition Act by restricting access to justice as a result of it assumption of regulatory jurisdiction over the paralegal profession;
C. An order for a declaration that the Law Society has acted in bad faith in its administration of its jurisdiction over the paralegal profession by reason of a conflict of interest.
D. An order for a declaration that By-law 4 of the Law Society Act restricting paralegals’ scope of practice is inconsistent with the enabling statute and has had the effect of frustrating rather that promoting the public interest;
E. An order for a declaration that the impugned By law 4 and all acts, decision and promulgations of the Law Society in the exercise of its jurisdiction over the paralegal profession be declared to be of no force and effect, or in alternatively, inapplicable to the extent that it violates the constitutional right of access to affordable justice,
F. Such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just.


Panel Blights might just get what she asked for buy refusing to abide by constitutional dictates setout in section 29 of Magna Carta; that is that “We will sell to no man , we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or rights.” He refusal to address the concerns raised by Kopyto might be in flagrant contravention to her mandated duty if reference is made to the confirmation of the great Charter of 1297 etc. where it is stipulated “Know ye that we, to the honour of God and of Holy Church, and to the profit of our realm, have granted for us and our heirs, that the Charter of liberties . . . which were made by common assent of King Henry our father, shall be kept in every point without breach. . . . 3. and that our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which old under us have the law of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgment in all their points that it is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law, . . . for the wealth of our realm.”

Then comes what ought to have guided Panel Chair Blights: “And we will, that if any judgment be given from henceforth contrary to the points of the charters aforesaid y justices, or any other our ministers that hold plea before ten against the points of the charters, it shall be undone, and holden for noughts,”

In Canada there is a sense that Judges feels that they are above the law since 1965, I have appeared before a number of provincial and federal board and tribunals both here in Ontario and in my native province of New Brunswick including the Superior Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court of Ontario and its Court of Appeal not to forget both levels of the Federal Courts of Canada including the Supreme Court of Canada and I can count on a few hands figures the number of those appearance but only count ion the one finger a Judges before whom I have appeared and that it was a New Brunswick appellate Judge on of three I found to be law abiding the other two were off the mark that. I even had a judge tell me in the Ontario that I had no right and to set down. If there would have been media presence in the Court, I would have left the Court and brought an appeal to bring him to his sense but did not want to run the risk of being thrown in jail in contempt as a result of his contemptuous disregards of my rights. A sad reality for an person who is not a lawyer and his legal mind has not been corrupted by the law schools of this country to be denied justice.

I will return on a later day in order to demonstrate the assertions that I have just referred above. Most of my involvements were as a self-represented to demonstrate the flawed in our judicial system. Since I was self represented my income did not increase on the basis of judicial stupidities and their failure to properly address frivolous and vexatious motion to deprive a person of limited means to access justice. Judges were once lawyers and that is how they accumulated their fortune and they would be stupid to do away with the status quo that made them rich before being called to the bench.

This leads me to the lead Law Society investigator currently on the stand. And quote from a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in which Kopyto was one of the lawyers for the appellant Dawson [1983] 2 S.C.R. http://canlii.ca/t/1txhw A unanimous court decision delivered by Lamer J., as he then was (Laskin C.J. and
Dickson, Estey, McIntyre, Choinard, Lamer and Wilson JJ. conncuring)

What is telling here is found at page 146:

“On June 26, 1980, a new information was laid and received. It charged an officer of the R.C.M.P with forgery, uttering false documents and conveying false message contrary to ss. 326(1), 330 and 324 of the Criminal Code. The hearing was under s. 455.3 was again adjourned. and eventually resumed on October 30, 1980. At this time, counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario, pursuant to s. 508 of the Code, directed the clerk of the court to make an entry on the record that the proceedings by the direction of the Attorney General. His Worship Justice of the Peace
Allen refused the appellant’s application for an adjournment and discontinued the proceedings.

In allowing the appeal, the learned Lamer, J, as he then was stated at page 158. “For these reason I would allow the appeal, and order that a mandamus issue and be directed to his Worship Justice of Peace Allen to proceed with a hearing pursuant to s. 455.3 of the Criminal Code on the nine charges contained in the information of the appellant Dowson.

Could the Blights panel be a case revisited if the matter was to reach the Supreme Court of Canada given the unanimous Supreme Court of Canada has overruled Ontario High Court of Justice Montgomery J. December 5, 1980 ruling (1980), 57 C.C.C. (2d) 286, 19 C.R. (3d) 384and Ontario C.J. Howland unanimous September 16, 1981ruling (1981) 62 C.C.C . 286, 24 C.R.. (3d) 139 (Martin and Lacoircière JJ.A) on June 1983? Could it be said that there is a similarly conduct between Justice of Peace Allen and Blight as Panel Chair during the present proceedings and how the Divisional Court dealt with Kopyto’s application for judicial review?

It is appalling that the lead investigator setout as moralizing on Kopyto good character when a former police when part of Kopyto character was trying to weed out corrupted police, I need to do more research on this topic. But res assured that I will have more to say.
Needless to say that I had a run-in in Court with the Attorney General who sought to stay the proceedings in question and this case involved a former Judge appointed Ombudsman by his government and he was appointed Judge by John Diefenbaker while Prime Minister and Bill Davis was leading the provincial government. Will also be interesting to see how the Law Society dealt with my concerns regarding this saga not to mention both the Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Kopyto there is a story to be told and it is not told by the Law Society’s leading investigator. You’re doing a good job putting into evidence his good character as lead investigator.

What is interesting in the Dawson Case is that Ian Scott, Q.C. was one of the lawyer representing the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties. The only reference to the Canadian Civil Liberties submission is found at page 150: Appellant’s subsidiary submission position supported by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, one whit which I am in agreement and would so find, is that, because a prosecution commences only after the Justice of the Peace has made a decision to issue process, an information has been found only after that decisiom.”

This will prove important later. Ian Scott was served in the Ontario Legislative Assembly from May 2, 1985 to September 28, 1992 and Attorney General from June 26, 1985 to October 1, 1990.

Although Ian Scott appeared as one of the counsels for Intervenant, Canadian Civil Liberties Association before the Court of Appeal, no reference was made to any of his submission before that court and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association did not intervene before the Ontario High Court of Justice.

Ian Scott would have been hard press to accede to Kopyto’s request to have him crime of overbilling Legal Aid because the Law Society admitted that Legal Aid had paid his bill in full in accordance with the billing practice. Having cleared any such charges, Ian Scott would have been duty bound pursuant to his mandated functions under the Law Society Act to set the two Law Society’s goons who had disbarred him under false pretense straight and to reinstate his licence most probably under some supervision of his billing practice for a time.

Not only Kopyto had demonstrated that he was a thorn in the police side and members of the Law Society who modus operndie to blink their client as much as they can by bringing frivilous and vexatios motion before the Court and the Court reluctance to address that contempteous conduct. Now wonder Kopyto has so much fun in picking hold in the lead law society’s investigator a former police because maybe he has a personal axe to grind with Harry’s exposing policing dubious conduct.

At least the United States convincted Kapone of tax evasion the Law Society could not even convinct Kopyto of overbilling legal aid base on its lead investigaators admission under croas examination. A more trangression of justice yet to be seen at the hand of those responsible for protecting public interest.