EVENTS:

Preamble, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that we are individuals Equal. We are to be treated Equal by all government services and or institutions as well so are all the Provinces their ministries and the legislation that those provinces create through legislation.
The events outlined below are about two individuals supposedly Equal but as you will see they are not in fact the system actually bends over backwards to protect the criminal in this story. Citizen A who commits 2 indictable offences against citizen B
Yes a relationship between citizen A and B was ended 3 years ago with little to no contact between citizen A or B until A committs indictable offences against B in November and December of 2008.There was never any complaints made by citizen A against citizen B since the relationship was ended 3 years ago however after citizen A committs the indictable offences citizen is all of a sudden concerned about their safety and asking for protection and attempting to maliciusly prosecute citizen B on lies
How does the Ministry of the Attorney General's agent act read all about it in the events that follow.



My Ex from over 3 years ago abused me in November and December of 2008. The abuse was that she "hijacked" my mail from a government entity. If the Criminal Code of Canada considers this crime to be an indictable offence in the same class as murder or treason and the direct result of her actions was to cause my lawsuit to be dropped, Then why has no entity from the Attorney General done anything about it and if I were a lesser man could these acts of intentional negligence by the Police, Justice of the Peace Hugh Brown and the crown attorney possibly have caused violence? I say yes it could have and there are numerous studies which support this!
1) In September 2006 Ms Workman and I end a relationship.
2) Ms Workman promises to help me with my interlocking case of Workmans Safety and Insurance Board as well as my Human Rights Commission case against my former employer discriminating against me for an injury incurred at his place of business.
3) Said help was to be testimonial and given freely.
4) At the same time I rent a place located at 21 Duke St # 402 in Hamilton the lease takes effect September 1, 2006 with the Effort Trust Company.
5) On or around November 27 of 2006 I enter into a live apart relationship with Renee Thompson.
6) All mail from Government agencies are informed of this and I receive my mail at said address located at 21 Duke.
7) I am evicted from the residence located at 21 Duke # 402 in Hamilton ON due to the fact that it had taken around 3 yrs to get to a hearing date. The Date of this is around January 2008 I survive by living on the couches of friends and family concentrating on getting my life moving forward after having waited so long for my board issues to be addressed.
8) I am involved with Nadine Renee Thompson at this point and our relationship moves onto a common living intimate relationship around February of 2009.
9) Late November 2008 Ms Workman commits the indictable offence of mail theft.
10) Around Jan 20 2009 I receive information pertaining to the act committed by the accused.
11) I inform various government agencies about what has happened to me.
12) I remember some personal journals are in storage at the accused’ place of residence and realize how I have woefully over estimated her morals and ethics.
13) On or around January 27, 2009 I place a call to the accused asking her to let me retrieve my personal journals and that it was nice of her to interfere with my mail
14) I am angry but not in a rage. I feel it is her karma debt to pay and is willing to let it go at that.
15) Jan 27, 2009 I receive an email from the accused’ email address of dalpatria her computer name.
16) In said email she state she admits to having said mail that had been stamped confidential from the human rights commission and that it was my issue and deal with it.
17) Also there is mention of how now she will testify only under subpoena
18) On Jan 29, 2009 I call HPS (Hamilton Police Services) and inquire as to the procedure of property recovery.
19) On or about the 20 November 2008 Ms. Jen Workman (hereto referred to as JW) receives legal correspondence clearly marked confidential from The Ontario Human Rights Commission (hereto known as O.H.R.C.) keeps it.
20) Said receives a second letter from O.H.R.C. dated Dec. 16 2008 both marked confidential keeps it as well. (see Pictures labled event 20 Envelope and rock'n roll)
21) Letter dated Dec. 16 2008 states that if no response was received within 30 days discrimination investigation against my former employer will be considered dropped.
22) On or about the 20 Jan. 2009 said letters are delivered to my brother’s place of business located approximately 1 kilometre away from the JW place of residence already opened. ( witness Matthew’s secretary)
23) My Brother calls me and reads said letters to me over the phone.
24) My response was to contact MPP Andrea Horwath immediately and to inquire what could be done about my claim with the O.H.R.C.
25) The next day said letters are delivered to me by Matthew Perrins and his wife Alex.
26) Jan. 29 2009 around noon phoned Hamilton Central police station talked with officer Blaj about police property recovery escort.
27) Was informed to call 905-546-4925 select option 2 then wait for voice and press3
28) Informed police would be there around 3 pm and asked if I could schedule to have officers there was told that it depends how busy they are.
29) Informed them would wait till they arrived.
30) Called around 5 pm and informed them who I was the situation and inquired if there was an estimate as to when they would arrive. Was informed that police would call about 10 – 15 minutes before they arrived.
31) Around 6pm JW. left to go to a local Curves establishment located west of her residence.
32) I and Maria Perrins were heading the same westerly direction and was about to inform the police to cancel but realized she would be back in about an hour.
33) Turned around and was waiting to make a left hand turn onto highway 8 and watched a police cruiser with the number I believe the #138 go by and the officer inside with a description of dark short hair took what would be considered keen interest in my mother’s car a plain late model Chevy Cavalier.
34) Said officer’s gaze lasted about 3 seconds and as he approached the intersection the front end of his car dipped as if he was applying his brakes.
35) The officer in the cruiser the speeded up as he was passing the intersection seeming to take note as to which direction my mother’s car was traveling and which direction it was pointed ( we were at a stop sign watching traffic intently as it is a left hand turn out of the parking lot where the Curves is located.)
36) Went back to JW’s place parked in the visitor’s parking lot and waited with my mother.
37) Called again around 7 pm and inquired as to when and was transferred from the dispatch to an officer Lisa who assured me it would not be too long.
38) Received call from officer Lisa around 9 pm with her informing me that it didn’t look to good that the police would be able to make it out anytime soon as a an armed robbery had just occurred and they were busy. In the course of the conversation I asked her if there was some way that perhaps since they knew I was there waiting for them if perhaps she could convince JW. to allow me to just retrieve my property from its hiding place. After all I had been patiently waiting for about 6 hrs with a witness.
39) Officer Lisa said she would call me back after she spoke with JW.
40) Officer Lisa called back after a few minutes and asked me if it would be alright if Ms. W and her witness could retrieve the papers and place them in the mail box for me retrieve also informing me that JW had concerns for her safety even though I had already identified myself and that there were 2 witnesses around.
41) I inquired with pc. Lisa as to how I could be assured the contents of my papers would not be tampered with after all JW had already committed mail theft.
42) pc Lisa informed me that there could be no guarantee. My reply was that on good faith hoping JW a teacher would do the moral and ethical thing as well as to avoid any further waste of time for all parties concerned.
43) I divulged the location of the papers I was after to pc Lisa.
44) pc Lisa conferred the information to JW and her witness.
45) At this point my witness and I were parked in front of JW’s house with a clear view of where the papers were located.
46) After about 20 seconds I watched as JW’s witness went up two floors to the third floor of the residence. Turn on the light to the spare bedroom and spend about 30 seconds in the room turn off the lights and then return to the street level part of the townhouse.
47) I received a call from pc Lisa informing me that the papers were not found and that some adult material was found there but no papers. I was also informed at this time that it was now acceptable for me to search the area where the papers were located.
48) I confirmed that the papers were indeed missing now and all of sudden that the resident had just recently replaced the water heater located nowhere near the location of the papers and this was probably the reason why they went missing.
49) I took a quick look at the water heater which was covered in cob webs and old water stained set of owner’s manual sitting to the left of the water heater on the floor.
50) I left with the property I was given commenting on what a pleasant pc Lisa was.
51) I left the residence owned by JW and went home emotionally and mentally assaulted by the experience.
52) Spent the next few days giving JW the opportunity to again do the moral and ethical thing and return the papers which she did not. There has been no contact between her and I since the Jan. 29 2009.
53) On Tuesday Feb 3 2009 I had an appointment with a doctor and decided on my way back that I would stop in at the central police station and have the police enforce the law as it says in their oath and as well to stop JW from ever committing crimes against me.
54) I arrived around 4 pm and informed the desk pc the reason I was there and that I would like the applicable laws enforced against JW
55) I then proceeded to take a seat in the lobby waiting for someone to provide help me stop this woman from ever causing me mental anguish in the future by pressing the charges.
56) I watched as the shift change occurred and the witnessed several reporting in for what I can only assume was probation requirements or bail
57) There were also some traffic offense that came in including one that had to have a form manipulated by the officer pertaining to either an insurance issue as well as another person who was there due to the fact his rear licence plate having fallen off.
58) A man and a woman came in from Mission services I believed immediately served by a white male officer on duty that night.
59) They spent from about 45 minutes to around an hour with said officer and were served cordially. Said officer use to live on Wentworth ave. here in Hamilton if there is any question as to my mental status and capabilities of memory forming
60) After said couple left I inquired as to when my issues would be addressed and was informed that it was a domestic matter and that they really do not intend to enforce the law.
61) I informed the officer that the documents The Accused stole from me in her mail theft were from the O.H.R.C. stamped confidential and my name at her address.
62) Said officer suddenly became interested in my claim and wanted acquire said envelope and documents.
63) I am deathly afraid of the police at this time due to events which took place in Simcoe in which my personal property was lost and yet the Provincial police never made restitution even though the investigator ascertained through his investigation that my property was lost by said police establishment.
64) I then informed said officer that the only reason this was a domestic issue was because me and JW live in the Hamilton area.
65) I then again informed said officer that this is probably a good reason why some women are assaulted and or killed if there can be no protection against a woman who breaks the law and suffers no consequences.
66) I then informed said officer that all I was asking him to do was his job.
67) I was then informed that I could have a seat and wait.
68) I had already been to the doctors for migraine medication and said medication is a vascular constrictor and it really wasn’t working for me.
69) I also informed said officer that I was considering letting the local television station know how this had been handled by the police.
70) Feb 4 or 5 the police are all of a sudden interested in contacting me via a phone message at my Mother’s place.
71) I choose not to respond to police until I can research and gain legal advise.
72) From Feb 6 to present I know longer trust police and it has cost people to be injured on two different occasions I have attempted to have federal laws enforced by the government body that has an official mandate to enforce the laws of the land.
73) Mar 21 2009 I am mugged at a residence located at the corner of Main and Wentworth in Hamilton ON.
74) I choose not to report this to the police due to recent interactions between me and the police regarding their intentional lack of intention to enforce current consolidated Canadian law.
75) 345. Every one who stops a mail conveyance with intent to rob or search it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.R.S., c. C-34, s. 304. as well as under the Canada Post Corporation Act Opening mail
76) 48. Every person commits an offence who, except where expressly authorized by or under this Act, the Customs Act or the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, knowingly opens, keeps, secretes, delays or detains, or permits to be opened, kept, secreted, delayed or detained, any mail bag or mail or any receptacle or device authorized by the Corporation for the posting of mail. R.S., 1985, c. C-10, s. 48; R.S., 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), s. 172; 2000, c. 17, s. 88; 2001, c. 41, s. 79.
77) Abandonment of mail 49. Every person commits an offence who unlawfully and knowingly abandons, misdirects, obstructs, delays or detains the progress of any mail or mail conveyance.1980-81-82-83, c. 54, s. 43.
78) Both of these offences are indictable and there are two counts of each.
79) In April 2009 I find in an alley while walking my dog a bag of jewellery display cases disposed of in an off the path sort of way in a travel bag/ suitcase
80) Again I choose not to report it either again due to the incidents with the police from late Jan to early Feb 2009.
81) I choose to ask JW for her legal contact information due to the fact that two previous attempts by me to have the indictable crimes against her pressed were met with disregard and blatant lack of duty of care to my protection from JW.
82) On or about July 15 2009 I send JW an Email through a chat site requesting the contact information of her legal representative. I also send emails out to the city councilors and The Mayor letting them know the quality of Police Services here in Hamilton outlining events upto July 15
The reply
Mr. Perrins


I have received a copy of the email you sent to the individuals outlined below and following a review of the information we have to date a member of HPS will be in contact with you.


Brian Mullan
Chief of Police




----- Original Message -----


Chief,


Please find below an e-mail we received from Mr. Perrins.


Regards,


Bernie Morelli,
Councillor, Ward 3
And
Chairman, Hamilton Police Services Board

I send Chief an email in an attempt to protect myself from any more what I feel are intentional acts of negligence and possible retribution from the police see below.



Mr. Mullan,

Your response has been received and filed. I am making the statement and declaration right now that:
1) That the contents of the computer I use are for my legal counsel and or lawyer.
2) That given recent negligent actions by HPS which as of yet the mens rea has not been ascertained has forced me to make the statement that the contents of my computer are for my legal counsel and or lawyer.
3) Recent events have caused me to have no faith in HPS and therefore wish all correspondence via email and or Canada Post Mail so as to create a clear concise paper trail.
4) That any co-operation I provide to HPS will not negate any or all civil actions that are discovered in the negligent/ discriminatory practises endured by me due to the actions of HPS.
5) That as a direct result of the events in which I was mugged by the two individuals by Main and Wentworth two other individuals were stabbed at that same address hours later and that if HPS had not been discriminatory and or negligent in the events that occurred in Jan. and Feb. of 2009 the two stabbed individuals would not of been stabbed as I would have reported the mugging / assault that happened hours before.
6) If HPS needs me to sign a complaint then I will meet them at central to sign any documents after being carefully read.
7) That there should be no need for HPS to contact me with regards to Jen Workman as it has been reported by me to them on several different occasions unless of course HPS admits negligence.
8)That all individuals involved who are employed by HPS in the negligent and or discriminatory actions be named.
9) HPS accepts full responsibility for all actions deemed contrary to the police services act the charter of rights in which I am supposed to be guaranteed equality in the eyes of the law and or government Ontario Human Rights.
10) HPS accepts all liability for the delays now incurred as a result of the discriminatory and or negligent practises.
11) I make a very public statement that to me all police services are corrupt and will never trust or have faith.
12) I would like copies sent to the Ombudsman and the Lieutenant Governor

Dan Perrins


83) July 20 2009 I receive information that officers Dell or Chu would like to contact me.
84) July 21, 2009 I respond to the request by Officer Dell and inquire as to why she wished to contact me.
85) The following phone conversation took place from 3:00 pm to approximately 3:20pm
86) pc Dell asked if I knew why I was talking with her to which I replied that it probably has something to do with JW.
87) She confirmed this and asked if I made any threats against JW’s person.
88) I replied no and that I had sent her an e-mail requesting her counsel’s contact information.
89) pc Dell informed me that from the letter she saw that I made an alleged statement that I would extract my pound of flesh.
90) I made no statements in my email correspondence asking for her counsel’s contact information.
91) On the night of Jan. 29 2009 I was there to retrieve some property JW had and I made mention of the documents.
92) Along with the documents there was a personal letter to myself shortly before my leaving JW’s residence I had written a letter to myself as to why JW was abandoning me after being injured at work and having to go through all the hard times ahead by myself. I did write the statement exact a pound of flesh it is a line from Shakespeare. I was extrememly depressed at the time and was contemplating suicide and their pound of flesh would be guilt and was written on or around June of 2006.
93) This confirms my statement that after divulging the whereabouts of said papers JW stole them a crime as well.
94) I also informed pc Dell that I would still like to see justice done and that the original theft charges should be enforced against JW.
95) pc Dell informed me she would not process the charges at exactly 3:18 pm I noted the time on the stove clock.
96) pc Dell informs me she will not file the charges as she was not the reporting officer but funny thing is no officer is the reporting officer as no charges have been filed against JW.
97) pc Dell informs me her incident report filed by JW is 09-250048.
98) I feel incredibly affronted and my faith in police services of Hamilton is lost
99) I decide to make an appeal to all government bodies with my true history of events hoping that the discrimination against males filing charges against females will stop!
100) On July 28, 2009 I attend the court house located at 45 main street east in Hamilton ON to arrange for a laying of an information or pre Enquête (sp) and have the assigned number of 09-5866 for reference purposes.
101) I present my information to a Justice of the Peace and have a hearing scheduled for August 18, 2009 at the same court house located at 45 Main Street East in Hamilton ON.
102) I gather my evidence and prepare a statement of the event leading up to that day.
103) Said evidence consists of my verbal testimony an envelope (re event 20) on which my name is attached as well as clearly marked “Confidential” my first hand testimony as well as the testimony of my brother whose business received said envelope from JW as well as my Fiancé’ testimony stating that in fact there were two envelopes and that she is willing to swear to that.
104) My brother’s testimony stated that he had received said envelopes from his secretary and that his secretary never opens his mail
105) Evidence in the form of electronic communication from Ms Workman in which she states that she had said mail and that it was now my problem deal with it. The rest of the letter is malicious. An email from a Daliah Phillips ( see Event 105 in Photos) at the Ontario Ombudsman’s Office indicating that she had been providing assistance and that the way the letters arrived at Ms Workman residence was from the Human Rights Commission acquiring it from a government database.
106) On August 18, 2009 I arrived at said court house with my Mother (Maria Perrins) my Brother (Matthew Perrins) and my Fiancé (N. Renée Thompson) All prepared to testify under oath to events that led up to the Pre Enquête.
107) I make contact with the Crown attorney explain to her about my lack of understanding on how this hearing is to take place and started showing her some of my evidence to which she replied she should not see this yet.
108) I exit the court room before the session starts.
109) There was one case before we were to be heard and it involved a foreign woman and her kids of whom she had about three or four with her. I believe they were of a Latin descent and the language which was spoken sounded like Spanish. The Legal representative spoke to them in said foreign language.
110) The case before mine is over around 10:30
111) My case is called I enter court room 304 and when asked as to whom I am and the people with me are I address the Court with what I believe is proper etiquette answering his Worship that the people with me were my witnesses to the events that have me before him that day.
112) The Justice of the Peace as of yet unnamed asks that my witnesses leave the court room until they are called which they adhere to without question and proceed to leave the court room.
113) I attempt to begin with an opening statement and are informed that I should take the stand
114) I am sworn in and proceed to try and enter into evidence my typed out statement but am stopped by his Worship with the reasoning that statements cannot be read from a paper or entered in as evidence.
115) I proceed to outline in verbal testimony probably eight or ten times. The same series of events over and over again. I felt like I was being interrogated instead of being able to give my testimony freely.
116) I enter in to evidence an envelope with my name and the accused’ address. It is read aloud into the record.
117) I was asked some questions pertaining to why my name her address to which I outlined how in 2006 me and the accused had ended a relationship and I acquired a new residence at 21 Duke in Hamilton ON and received my mail there but unfortunately due to the amount of time for my case to be heard and or action to be taken I had lost said residence at 21 Duke #402 in Hamilton
118) At this Point the Crown steps in with “If I may your Worship,,,” and repeats what I had been saying all along and with that the proceeding moves forward. I wonder if His Worship was trying to get me to commit Perjury. Entrapment?
119) His Worship closely scrutinized my testimony in regards to as how the Human rights Commission correspondence had ended up at the accused’ address. To which I replied that it was through the Commission’s own doing and produced an email from the Ontario Ombudsman’s office in which she had ascertained that it was through the Ministry of Transportation (Ombudsman’s file # 193461 contact person is Dahlia Phillips)
120) I then entered into evidence an email from the accused’ email address of dalpatria@hotmail.com
121) At this point it seemed as if something was very wrong in that when the crown saw the letter which was read aloud in court the statement of and I quote “whatever it is your mail.. your issue… I delivered it I didn’t have to...” she shook her head side ways.
122) I then tried to enter into evidence the events which took place on January 29 2009 where the accused committed an act of theft in which she retrieved papers located at the residence we formerly shared together and did not return them (see points 23 – 48)
123) The Justice stops me stating that I cannot do this contrary to R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 25 (1)
124) I end my testimony
125) I call my Brother Matthew Perrins in next to testify he is sworn in and I ask him if he recognizes the envelope how many of the envelopes there were and what condition they were in when he received them.
126) Brother replies there were 2 envelopes they were opened when he received them and he recognized the one in evidence I believe on the last part.
127) At this point I am so upset after being put on trial by the Justice moments before.
128) The Justice asked questions of my brother which ascertained that my brother received said envelopes from his secretary. I asked my brother 1 more question after his worship had finished asking various questions and that was has your secretary ever opened your mail to which he replied no not ever it is his business his mail.
129) My brother is excused from the witness box and leaves the court room 304.
130) My next witness was a Ms Renee Thompson who corroborated that there was were 2 envelopes as well as other events.
131) At this point His Worship rendered his verdict which was that “ I could have had my mail sent elsewhere and there would be no issuance .” in direct conflict of Part 3 of R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.33 the The Provincial Offences Act.
132) I asked His Worship about the letter or something and He looked sternly at me and I realized that I should not pursue it further
133) I was handed back my evidence and was in total shock as to what had just occurred the clerk had some problems finding 1 piece but I was not concerned about it as I had all documents in triplicate and was in what could best be described as shock.
134) I felt like what a rape victim feels when a Judge questions what they were wearing and were they drunk or similar questions.
135) While the clerk is searching for my evidence I talk to the crown attorney and inquire as to if this was it and if I had any appeal or other process to have my evidence heard.
136) Her reply was that “no there was not and that the rules were beyond a reasonable doubt”
137) I left talking with her giving the remark that I think she would be seeing me again in the court room.
138) At that moment I had every intention of filing for another laying of an information pertaining to the night of January 29, 2009.
139) I left the court house in rage and incredible shock. Even though I had been found against I have shown immense control for all the acts of obstruction of justice perpetrated against me by various branches of the Attorney Generals ministry. I had all kinds of evidence that the accused had in fact committed the crime including the accused’ confession via email correspondence, and yet no issuance charge summons or anything for the reason that I could have had my mail sent somewhere else. It was as much my fault at what happened as it would be for a person who gets hit by a stray bullet guess I should have been elsewhere?
140) The effect of these events have been unfathomable unless you are right there experiencing them.
141) August 26, 2009 I call Attorney General’s office and confirm the receipt of my email to them outlining all events that have taken place, receptionists name is Louise.
142) Letter is same as above with these questions
My questions to you Honourable Chris Bentley are :

1. Why has your ministry ignored the needs of men who have been abused by their female spouses and or ex female spouses contrary to the information that has been provided by statistics Canada which states in the latest publication I could find that “Charges were laid by police in the majority (77%) of spousal violence incidents. Incidents involving female victims were more likely to result in a charge being laid than those involving male victims.”
2. Why has your ministry made the conscious decision to discriminate against men who are abused by not opening any shelters and or counselling services for men who have been abused?
3. Why did the Justice of the Peace hearing my Pre Enquête on August 18, 2009 in court room 304 of the Hamilton court house located at 45 Main St. East file # 09-5866 act on behalf of the accused in direct conflict with his oath of office?
4. Why did same said Justice of the peace in the same incidence fail to comply with the rules of procedure section 3 Provincial Offences Act
R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.33 where it states that an information will be found sufficient if and I quote from elaws” Sufficiency (7) No count in an information is insufficient by reason of the absence of details where, in the opinion of the court, the count otherwise fulfils the requirements of this section and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, no count in an information is insufficient by reason only that,
(a) it does not name the person affected by the offence or intended or attempted to be affected;
(b) it does not name the person who owns or has a special property or interest in property mentioned in the count;
(c) it charges an intent in relation to another person without naming or describing the other person;
(d) it does not set out any writing that is the subject of the charge;
(e) it does not set out the words used where words that are alleged to have been used are the subject of the charge;
(f) it does not specify the means by which the alleged offence was committed;
(g) it does not name or describe with precision any person, place or thing; or
(h) it does not, where the consent of a person, official or authority is required before proceedings may be instituted for an offence, state that the consent has been obtained. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 25 (1-7).

5. Why did said Justice intentionally act in contradiction to section 25 sub 2 and find my information insufficient on the grounds that “ I could have had my mail sent to another address when I had no idea that I was receiving said mail?

6. Why did said Justice act intentionally in direct conflict with section 25 sub 5 “More than one count (5) Any number of counts for any number of offences may be joined in the same information.” And stop me from making the allegation of theft by the accused in the same Pre Enquête?

7. Why did the Crown attorney present at said pre Enquête fail to adhere to the relevant legislation the Crown Attorney and her oath which states” 8. Every Crown Attorney and every assistant Crown Attorney, before entering upon his or her duties, shall take and subscribe before a judge of the Superior Court of Justice the following oath: I swear (or affirm) that I will truly and faithfully, according to the best of my skill and ability, execute the duties, powers and trusts of Crown Attorney (or assistant Crown Attorney) without favour or affection to any party: So help me God. (Delete if affirmed) R.S.O. 1990, c. C.49, s. 8; 2006, c. 19, Sched. C, s. 1 (1).

8. Why did said Crown Attorney act as stated by section 11 and pursue the information I gave under sworn testimony and 11. The Crown Attorney shall aid in the local administration of justice and perform the duties that are assigned to Crown Attorneys under the laws in force in Ontario, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, every Crown Attorney shall, to examine informations, etc. (a) examine informations, examinations, depositions, recognizances, inquisitions and papers connected with offences against the laws in force in Ontario that the provincial judges, justices of the peace and coroners are required to transmit to him or her, and, where necessary, cause such charges to be further investigated, and additional evidence to be collected, and sue out process to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of papers, so that prosecutions may not be delayed unnecessarily or fail through want of proof;

9. Why did said crown attorney act in contrary to section 11 sub (h) where it states “justices of the peace (h) advise justices of the peace with respect to offences against the laws in force in Ontario;
Why if the Crown attorney who as is stated in section 4 of the Crown Attorney act where it states that “Qualification 4. No person shall be appointed a Crown Attorney or assistant Crown Attorney or act in either of such capacities who is not a member of the bar of Ontario. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.49, s. 4. conduct herself in a manner that brings discredit to the Law Society of Upper Canada Act where it states “Prohibited conduct 33. A licensee shall not engage in professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a licensee. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 29. Duty as Prosecutor (4.01 (3) When acting as a prosecutor, a lawyer shall act for the public and the administration of justice resolutely and honourably within the limits of the law while treating the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy, and respect.) and Contrary to (Encouraging Respect for the Administration of Justice 4.06 (1) A lawyer shall encourage public respect for and try to improve the administration of justice.) and in conflict with ((b) a lawyer has special responsibilities by virtue of the privileges afforded the legal profession and the important role it plays in a free and democratic society and in the administration of justice, including a special responsibility to recognize the diversity of the Ontario community, to protect the dignity of individuals, and to respect human rights laws in force in Ontario,)
Why did the Hamilton Police Services act in a way that was contrary to the Constitution Act of Canada 1982 with blatant disregard for the observance of sections: 12 15(1) and 28 which all state that all Canadians are equal? Why did the Hamilton Police act in direct conflict of their oaths?
Why Have You Sir allowed all of these issues to continue while you are in charge of all entities that have been party to the offence of obstruction of Justice?
Why has there been no actions taken against women who lie to police to have their spouses and or ex-spouses “attacked” emotionally and or physically by the Justice system?
Why has your Ministry engaged in these acts of discrimination even though reported abuse by a spouse is about the same between men and women with quoted incidents at or around 12% with a difference of about 2% between men and women as for the occurrence rate?
Why has Your ministry chosen to ignore the statistics gathered by Stats Can. Where it states and I quote “Charges were laid by police in the majority (77%) of spousal violence incidents. Incidents involving female victims were more likely to result in a charge being laid than those involving male victims.” Your answer to these findings are?
I reserve the right to add more questions but am sure this is enough to keep your office busy for quite sometime. I end these Statements of fact with my electronic signature to be construed as my having had signed a document in person.
Thank you
Dan Perrins
143. The response I receive from The Attorney General. See album labled 143 in photo section.
144. My application to have my discrimination case against my former employer is responded to and denied again due to the fact that I did not respond back in November and December 2008
145. here is my response to being turned down around Sept of 2009 Reasons for My Case to be heard:
1. My personal mail was sent by the Commission to my former address without my knowledge.

2. Said mail was as outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada section (345) stolen and therefore not known to me.

3. My right to a fair hearing was violated by Ms Jen Workman a witness and former spouse.

4. Ms Workman as of yet has not been brought to justice for committing an indictable offence of mail theft and or theft and or malicious prosecution but an investigation into said event has been started by more than one government agency.

5. Evidence which I would have brought before the Commission was never examined due to the theft of my mail by Ms Workman.

6. Ms Workman sent an email confirming she had said mail “and that she didn’t have to deliver it” I agree with this statement although I do not agree with holding a persons mail hostage for 60 days.

7. An Information was brought about by me in lieu of Hamilton Police Services blatant negligence and incompetence with regards to the theft of the correspondence sent by the Commission to Ms Workman.

8. The Commission should also be filing charges against Ms Workman for the theft of its confidential mail.

9. Dahlia Phillips of the office of the Ombudsman can verify all facts file # 193461

146. Although I inform and openly make the claim that JW did in fact steal my mail to a Ms. Joachim in my reasons for my case to be heard her response is that " The Commission's decision was sent to my former address and not forwarded to him" is a far cry from what was written
147. What was written is that it was stolen. Is the HRTO employing illiterate investigators and or adjunicators?
148. I am angry at this and send an email off to various government bodies and to the people in charge of transitional
149. The email:Dear Ms Mock, Ms Joachim and Ms Grenier,


I am informing you the Tribunal that I find your reasoning to be flawed and as a result your decision constitutes a miscarriage of justice. The main reason for your decisions dated October 1, 2009 specifically point 6 where the Tribunal states that the "Commission decision was sent to my former address and not forwarded to him" It is at this point your decision making becomes flawed.
My mail was sent to my Ex- girlfriend's place a Ms Workman, I did not ask nor was aware of said mail being sent to Ms Workman. At this point she commits an indictable crime under section 345 of the Criminal Code of Canada mail theft. She opens said correspondences and withholds said mail addressed to me and stamped "Confidential" by the Commission. This happens on two separate occasions in which my mail was sent to her. The times of these offences are in November of 2008 and December of 2008. The two letters that were "hijacked" by Ms Workman were time sensitive and would have given me the opportunity to enter my evidence before the Commission and or have as is my legal right a hearing to ascertain the validity of my complaints of discrimination by my former employer.

In your mandate, core values, and mission statement the Tribunal states that "Fairness: the process will ensure that decisions are based on the facts, the law and the merits of the case." I ask you to please explain to me how it is a fair and just decision when part of the facts outlined before you in previous emails and forms state that my mail from the Commission was in fact stolen and that the Commission based its findings as a direct result of said mail being stolen / "hijacked" by my "ex-girlfriend"

I ask the Tribunal if your statement of "Fairness" is to be believed then how can it include decisions that are achieved as a direct result of a crime being committed against the complainant? How can it be a just and fair decision? If a suspect commits a crime and is charged but the evidence that is examined was attained in a manner which was illegal then are the charges not dropped?

In the section labelled Mission the direct infractions are almost to numerous to list for your decision in my case are a polar opposite of what you claim.


The Tribunal will play its role as a pillar in the human rights system by providing expeditious and accessible processes to assist the parties to resolve complaints brought before the Tribunal, and to determine complaints where the parties are unable to resolve them.
The Tribunal will be activist to seek a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of an application.
The Tribunal will provide and promote meaningful and effective public interest remedies in appropriate cases. The Tribunal will not bar settlements where parties freely desire to resolve their dispute.
The Tribunal will seek to maintain the highest standards of integrity and quality of work.
The Tribunal will strive for consistency to enhance the parties' reasonable expectations of Tribunal policy and process, but will remain responsive to differing cases and party needs, and to an evolving understanding of human rights and discrimination.
The Tribunal will strive to promote a clear understanding of the Tribunal's work among the general public. The Tribunal will work to be responsive to the needs of its stakeholder communities.


Is the Tribunal's pillar built on crimes that pervert the natural course of Justice?

Is the Tribunal's definition of an "activist to seek a fair, just..." include decisions that are derived directly from the actions of a crime committed against the complainant that pervert the natural course of justice?

The Tribunal wishes it to be known that they will provide and promote people to interfere with the natural course of justice through crimes?

Is this what the words integrity and quality refer to? According to your last correspondence even though you have been made aware that your mail to me was stolen and yet there has been nothing done about it? Definitively the best examples of integrity and quality.
Are you evolving to promote mail theft by ex-spouses? I am trying to understand how my mail can be stolen and yet still be found against by the Tribunal please explain this to me for I would like to make this policy public.

I would just like some confirmation as to how the Supreme Court of Canada has overturned cases where decisions were arrived at through an illegal act and yet when the Tribunal is made aware of an indictable offence committed in part against them by Ms Workman they have chosen to ignore said offence and still act in complete defiance of all precedented cases?

Your reply is appreciated,

Dan Perrinscomplaints from the OHRC to the HRTO




150. Their reply see Event 150 in photos
151. I send in form T8 as per instructed along with various documents one key piece is a letter from The Justices of The Peace Review Council (see Event 151)
152. Document list sent in with FormT8 (See Event 152)

153 The reasons for my Reconsideration are as follows
Request for Reconsideration

Ms. Patricia M. Grenier,
I am making a formal request for a reconsideration of my complaint and that the process for a proper hearing and/or investigation be undertaken by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HTRO) into my case Dan Perrins v. Storm Roll & Coil Repair Limited and Bob Dragusica . HRTO File No. TR-0685-09.

The follow reasons are the grounds for my request:
1. HRTO is the replacement government agency for the Ontario Human Rights Commission under the Transition Provisions of the Human Rights Code Amendment Act. Section 53(5) and in conjunction with section 39 and 41 and 42(1)
2. Point six (6) made by Kaye Joachim states “The applicant asserted that the Commission decision was sent to his former address and was not forwarded to him……finally dealt with by the Commission” is very different of what I put in my reasons why my case should be heard in my form sent in September 2009. My statement which Ms Joachim either misconstrued or intentionally disregarded was not that my mail was not forwarded to me, the statement does read “Ms Workman as of yet has not been brought to justice for committing an indictable offence of mail theft and or theft and or malicious prosecution but an investigation into said event has been started by more than one government agency.”
3. Pursuant to section 18 (1a)(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER S.22
Notice of decision
18. (1) The tribunal shall send each party who participated in the proceeding, or the party’s representative, a copy of its final decision or order, including the reasons if any have been given,
(a) by regular lettermail;

“Use of mail
(2) If the copy is sent by regular lettermail, it shall be sent to the most recent addresses known to the tribunal and shall be deemed to be received by the party on the fifth day after the day it is mailed. 1994, c. 27, s. 56 (34). The OHRC used and address that was prior to my address of 21 Duke St. #402 therefore a finding or a decision based on this is in direct conflict of law.
4. The first issues is that my mailing address was changed from 29 Heritage Drive #11 to 21 Duke Street # 402 and while I was at this address I received correspondence from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Unfortunately due to the extreme length of time it took for my application to be addressed I lost my residence due to the fact that other than social assistance, which barely covered the rent of my bachelor apartment let alone any other living expensed I had no income.
5. When I lost my apartment at 21 Duke Street I communicated with the Ontario Human Rights Commission through email on a number of occasions so there was no question that I could not be contacted.
6. The correspondence sent to me at 29 heritage drive unit # 11 by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in November and December of 2008 was sent two years after I had moved from that location. It was then stolen and opened by my ex-spouse. This act of intercepting and holding my personal and confidential correspondence from the Human Rights Commission negated any chance of a fair and just proceeding as outlined in the Core values of the Tribunal and which are found as well in the outline of your mission statement which states "Functionally: all people, whether involved as claimants, respondents or other interests, should feel that the process is understandable, fair and relevant to their own experience, whether or not they are represented by a lawyer.” Your definition of fairness states:
Fairness: the process will ensure that decisions are based on the facts, the law and the merits of the case.
7. It is my understanding from reading the Amendment Act that the HRTO which by way of the Transition Provisions of the Human Rights Code Amendment Act has the jurisdiction to hear my case and/or investigate my claims. Unfortunately this means that the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s mail was stolen and at that point in time because of the crime committed, the Commission should have re-opened my complaint. For some reason however the Commission has chosen not to investigate. If the Criminal Code of Canada considers mail theft to be an indictable crime in the same class as murder or treason then why has the Commission through an act of omission become a willing participant with the perpetrator of the crime and not done anything about it? As well why has the HRTO chosen to start their government agency knowing that its former creation had “dropped the ball” in regards to a decision based on a crime committed against the complainant (interruption and theft of the mail from the intended recipient) by a third party?
8. The Office of the Ontario Ombudsman has this all documented (file #19346) and they found that the mail delivered to my most recent address of 21 Duke # 402 was returned to sender and that the Ontario Human Rights Commission then did a search through the Ministry of Transportation database which turned up with an even older address of 29 Heritage Drive (my ex-spouse’s residence) Jen Workman. Instead of confirming by email an appropriate mailing address the Commission chose to send mail to an address over two years old at that point in time.
9. In November and December of 2008 Ms Workman interfered with my mail, opening it and holding on to it until the due dates on the enclosed paper work had passed. This act of revenge on her part is an indictable crime that derails the opportunity for the natural course of justice in my case with Storm Roll & Coil Repair Ltd.
10. I have not been given an opportunity to be heard on my complaint which is a right that is documented on your webpage.
“The Opportunity to be Heard: a complaint that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal will not be finally determined without giving the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions.”

On the Tribunal’s website it states “The Tribunal will be activist to seek a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of an application.” With the correspondence having been stolen as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada and the Canada Post Corporation Act.1980-81-82-83, c. 54, s. 1. Sections (48) and (49) and the Commission having an alternate means of contacting me it is unfair and unethical that the case was settled ex-parte or considered abandoned. I would like to know how this action can be considered to be consistent with your mission statement and mandate.

In addition to this your (HRTO) website states “The Tribunal will provide and promote meaningful and effective public interest remedies in appropriate cases.” Although my case may not be in the greater public interest I do believe that having a government entity, such as the HRTO and or OHRC failing to take into consideration criminal acts which derailed the course of justice would be of significant interest to the public as well as that they (the OHRC and HRTO) has chosen to ignore the crimes committed against them as well as the complainant to be of high value to public interest. The reason this is of public importance is that if the government an agent or an agency of the government cannot guarantee that its mail is safe, secure, completely intact and reaching the intended recipient and after having been made aware of said crimes committed against said government agencies and willing does nothing about the crimes then I ask how can this be considered justice in even the broadest definition of the word? Further more to this point why has the HRTO chosen to begin its government organization with decisions derived from the direct result of a crime and done nothing about which brings its operations, core directions and ability to provide the fair and just hearings it claims to have the ability to provide citizens of Ontario into serious disrepute? The claim that the Tribunal will maintain the highest standards of integrity and quality of work appears to have been completely disregarded by its decision to allow an employee to knowingly ignore that a crime has been committed. To proceed in making a judgement without considering this crime is not only a miscarriage of justice against me but the tribunal as well, as well as being a direct contradiction to all that the Tribunal claims to stand for and provide.

The following is a list of the documents attached to this request:
- Court documents which refer to the theft of the Commission’s mail to me file # 09-5866
- A letter from the Justices of the Peace Review Council identifying His Worship Hugh Brown as the presiding justice of the peace.
I am also enclosing a letter from the Ministry of the Attorney General in which it states that the majority of spousal abuse support programs are created for women. These programs are contrary to its own statistical information that spousal abuse happens about twelve percent (12%) of the time and the variance between males and females is about two percent (2%). It would appear at first glance that the Honourable Chris Bentley has “fallen asleep at the helm” of his government organization and intentionally and or negligently made the decision to treat men who complain about spousal abuse perpetrated against them by women differently. Although the Attorney General may not have specifically initiated said discriminatory tactics in practice by the ministry’s legislated government entities such as the police, the crown attorney’s office and the judiciary, he is still responsible for the actions of all its employees as well as outlined on his website and confirmed by the Ministry of the Attorney General Act. Section 5 states:
The Attorney General,
(a) is the Law Officer of the Executive Council;
(b) shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law;
(c) shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario;
As outlined in subsection (c) the minister is to superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario, therefore the lack of action by the minister and his staff and related government entities which are a part of the administration of justice, condones the use of a crime to produce injustice.
I ask the Tribunal and or Commission how it can ignore the actions of a crime committed against the Tribunal and or Commission as well as the intended recipient of its correspondence and the direct result of said crime has been to contaminate the natural course of justice?
I also ask the HRTO why after having been made aware of the fact that the theft of my mail by my ex-spouse in a letter received by me from HRTO on October 13 2009 and dated October 8 2009 in which HRTO acknowledges the receipt of my email outlining the crime that has perverted the natural course of justice with a direct impact on my application and or case has not in fact acted on its own initiative to ensure the integrity and quality of work as it states in the Practice Direction on Reconsideration with the sub-heading of Related Procedure?
Related Procedure
The Tribunal may begin a reconsideration process on its own initiative. In these circumstances, the Tribunal will provide the parties with an opportunity to make submissions.
I ask the HRTO if ignoring crimes committed against either of the parties by a third party or by the opposing parties that directly affects a decision is the highest standard of integrity and quality of work mentioned in its mission statement. I also pose the question whether through an act of omission on its part is the HRTO condoning crime? Is it common practice for the Tribunal to become an informed and willing participant in derailing the course of justice?


Pursuant to sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

As the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) are both creations of the legislature of the province of Ontario and as a result of the enabling legislation creating OHRC / HRTO are able to hold a hearings and pursuant to section 42(1) of the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006. 2006, c. 30, s. 10. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms pursuant to the above noted section 32(b) apply.

Treatment or punishment
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
By OHRC /HRTO not adhering to its own rules and regulations sections 18 (1a) and (2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER S.22 constitutes cruel and unusual treatment. Blatant disregard for the rules can only be done intentionally and if it is discovered it was not, then the people responsible should have their qualifications verified for such an oversight is heinous and deplorable. The HRTO’s decision to continue validating the decision by the OHRC after information of a crime that was in direct conflict with the above mentioned act is as well indictable and a federal offense detracts from the integrity OHRC / HRTO claims to be able to produce. The fact that the HRTO and OHRC have not made a formal complaint to any of the law enforcement entities in regards to its mail being tampered with before reaching its intended recipient’s possession makes the statement that it cares little for the rights and freedoms of the people it is legislated to protect and provide justice for based on law as well for the documents and or forms it requires for the complainant and or respondent to use in accordance with the relevant legislation and as again brings the OHRC and the HRTO in disrepute. Is this usual treatment of a participating party to a claim? Is the complete disregarding of the claim a crime was committed against the OHRC / HRTO and a party participating in a complaint not cruel? Further by not acknowledging and or investigating the crimes committed by Ms. Workman against all parties and officials in this complaint with nothing being done about not cruel?

Equality Rights
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The decision handed down by the OHRC was based on abandonment. Pursuant to 24(1) I have made an application to a court of competent jurisdiction, the HRTO to obtain remedy. HRTO’s decision to deny my application violates my right to equal protection and benefit of the law. It has done this by allowing its and its former entity’s mail to be the object of an indictable crime and yet after being made aware of this crime has not made an official complaint to the police. These facts and events have created an inequality in the protection and benefit of the law. The OHRC nor the HRTO has never offered a reason why it has not filed a report with any law agency as of yet. Why? I have tried to file a complaint with the Hamilton Wentworth Police Services on two separate occasions and for reasons as of yet undiscovered they have failed to press any of the applicable charges as defined by Criminal Code.R.S., c. C-34, s. 1. Sections 322(a), theft
322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;

Section 345
Stopping mail with intent
345. Every one who stops a mail conveyance with intent to rob or search it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 304.

No charges have either been laid in a similar charge under the Canada Post Corporation Act.1980-81-82-83, c. 54, s. 1. sections (48) and (49) which read as follows:

Opening mail
48. Every person commits an offence who, except where expressly authorized by or under this Act, the Customs Act or the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, knowingly opens, keeps, secretes, delays or detains, or permits to be opened, kept, secreted, delayed or detained, any mail bag or mail or any receptacle or device authorized by the Corporation for the posting of mail.
R.S., 1985, c. C-10, s. 48; R.S., 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), s. 172; 2000, c. 17, s. 88; 2001, c. 41, s. 79.

Abandonment of mail
49. Every person commits an offence who unlawfully and knowingly abandons, misdirects, obstructs, delays or detains the progress of any mail or mail conveyance.
1980-81-82-83, c. 54, s. 43.

All of these charges are adequate in describing the crimes committed by Ms Workman in the conveyance of the letters from the OHRC to me. These crimes are committed against both the sender and recipient, making the decisions arrived at by the OHRC the direct result of a crime and through an act of omission by HRTO makes themselves a willing participant in the commission of said a crimes pursuant to section 23(1) of The Criminal Code.R.S., c. C-34, s. 1
Accessory after the fact
23. (1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing that a person has been a party to the offence, receives, comforts or assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.

Part 23 (1) describes accessories after the fact, OHRC and HRTO act of omitting to report said crimes which have directly had a cause in the outcome of a complaint assists Ms. Workman to escape justice for the crimes outlined above.
Enforcement
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The (OHRC) and HRTO is as its replacement has based its findings on the fact that they received no response to the correspondence sent out in November and December of 2008 at the address 29 #11 Heritage drive in Stoney Creek Ontario. There evidence is their copies of the letters with no reply from me. Said letters were “forwarded” to me by Ms Workman late in January of 2009 opened. The “Forwarding” method chosen by Ms. Workman was to deliver said letters opened to a family member’s local business located near by the above mentioned address where Ms. Workman resides. These events are the evidence the OHRC / HRTO has based its decisions on. The fact the letters were opened the Tribunal/ Commission must find that the contents and integrity were compromised and therefore must be excluded as evidence due to that fact. The fact that the letters were stamped confidential by the Commission clearly indicates the importance of said letters and the contents therein. Part (2) makes it clear that if a court concludes that if evidence (the evidence of my abandonment of my complaint) was obtained in manner that infringes or denies any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this charter the evidence shall be excluded…. justice into disrepute. Then the OHRC’s evidence that I abandoned my claim was in fact obtained through the direct result of a crime and the decision brings the administration of justice into serious disrepute.
It is for the above reasons and questions that I respectfully request that the tribunal start the procedures for reconsideration and or petition for a judicial review to the Ontario courts so as to ensure that the natural course of justice be enabled to run its course. I ask the HRTO to follow its mission and policy statement as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Criminal Code of Canada and reconsider my complaint / case File No. TR-0685-09.
One last question is the lack by any or all government agencies action against women in regards with complaints made by men against their former / ex-spouses actually increasing violence against women? For if a man cannot receive unadulterated justice as a result of a crime having been committed against them and told by a police officer to “suck it up” as was stated by the desk sergeant on February 3, 2009 at the Hamilton Police Services Central Branch and having nothing done about it leaves the wheels of justice stopped dead in its tracks and given that emotions between ex-spouses tend to be excitable how could it not have a direct result as to increase violence against women and if this is the case then through an act of omission the OHRC and The HRTO are condoning the possibility of said violence and helping to increase it.
Dan Perrins

154. The reponse from HRTO is that there is no reason for my case to be reconsidered (See Event 154)
155. On Friday November 27 2009 I have my last meal with my fiance. November 28 she is hospitolized as a direct result of the events listed above.
156. I stop eating and decide to go very public with these events by staging a Hunger Strike for Equal Rights at the Court house where I feel the most severe example of discrimination and obvious disregard for current consolidated law as well as equal benefit before and under the law.
157. I am hungry infact I am starving but it pales in comparrison to my hunger for equality and justice.
158. This flyer is being handed out at said court house begining November 30 2009.
Premier Dalton McGuinty, {Honourable} Chris Bentley, His Worship Hugh Brown, the Hamilton Courts, Their Crown Attorneys, Mayor Eisenberger, the City Councillors, as well as Hamilton Police support Spousal Abuse 48% of the time!

Go To:
https://fixourworld.ning.com/profile/EdwardTeach?xg_source=profiles...


160 events that fully explains who is failing you and your personal safety!

159. I see an article in View Magazine stating that the law firm (Gowlings) that represents the city in its lawsuit against the Province of Ontario for the Red Hill Creek Expressway issues is the very same lawfirm that represents my former employer a funny coincidence or was there some back room deals that helped His Worship Hugh Brown in disregarding all laws which govern the laying of an information?
160. Another interesting fact that as a Ms. Devine as a member of the law society of upper Canada should have reported that I made the claim that government corresspondence in a legal matter she was involved with had been stolen and or the contents therein could not be guranteed uncomprimised, to the proper judiciary body when she was made aware of that fact but she chose not to. Therefore by way of an act of ommission the firm Gowling supports spousal abuse 100% of the time I assume as long as it is in their clients best interest.