Sudbury MCSS and FRO

2. Judge, FRO & Registrar Add comments

Sudbury Personal Support Worker Miereil Andre and Sudbury legal team are a threat to everyone. Think of George Orwell’s 1984 and you’ll have a good picture of how issues are handled at the Sudbury MCSS, FRO and CA$. On November 27th, 2013 M. Verhagen, M. Andre MCSS, AG Registrar and Sudbury’s judicial branch filed a false claim for child support when Sudbury AG registrar D. Rorison knowingly accepted M. Verhagen’s motion and M. Andre’s affidavit which simply stated that they did not receive the dismissal notice that was sent to them and did not provide any explanation whatsoever as to why they did not receive it. And neither Judge R. Gordon nor Sudbury registrar D. Rorison thought that it was suspicious that nobody received dismissal order for my 2007 motion in which Judge P. Hennessey presided and order $616/month child support but no access or Police or CAS accountability.

  1. That it is impossible for anyone to believe that neither M. Verhagen, M. Andre, FRO or the MCSS or anyone else in Sudbury did not receive the notice of dismissal that D. Rorison was required to send to them.
  2. That I contacted several registrars in different cities and they all told me that they wouldn’t have accepted M. Verhagen’s and M. Andre’s motion and affidavits that stated they didn’t receive the dismissal order-especially a dismissal order that was seven years old.
  3. That M. Verhagen, M. Andre, MCSS and the AG registrar served me with their motion and affidavit to set aside the dismissal order while I was serving a 60 day sentence imposed by Judge M. Lambert for contravening 136. (1)that states “no person shall, (a) take or attempt to take a photograph, motion picture, audio recording or other record capable of producing visual or aural representations by electronic means or otherwise, (i) at a court hearing, (b) publish, broadcast, reproduce or otherwise disseminate a photograph, motion picture, audio recording” after I began publishing the actions and decisions of Sudbury’s Police, CAS, lawyers and judges on the internet.
  4. Since 2011, the law relating to setting aside a registrar’s dismissal orders has been the subject of only SEVEN decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.  The general approach first set out by the Court of Appeal in Scaini has been followed consistently, but Judge R. Gordon and AG registrars D. Rorison and K. Lyle seemed to have their own unique self-serving approaches.
  5. On May 15, 2014 judge R. Gordon incredibly set aside the administrative dismissal order dated May 9 2009 and then reinstated the child support order of judge Hennessey dated November 28 2007 retroactive 7 years with the intent to extort $29,397.37 for the benefit of M. Verhagen, M. Andre, MCSS, FRO, the registrar and the Lawyers of the Northeast Region. The notice of dismissal was for a motion that I had filed in 2007 in which Judge P. Hennessey presided and order $616/month child support but no access or Police or CAS accountability.
  6.  That in determining whether to set aside a registers’ order, the applicant must satisfy four criteria.  If the applicant fails to satisfy anyone of the four criteria the registrar’s dismissal order will stand. The four criteria to be satisfied are known as the Reid test a) explanation of delay, b) the motion must be brought promptly c) inadvertence in missing deadline, and c) prejudice.  M. Verhagen, M. Andre, D. Rorison and the MCSS didn’t satisfy any criteria. But nonetheless lawyers for the MCSS, FRO, AG and Judge R. Gordon should have known that under the rules of the court, failure to set the action down within 2 years would lead to a dismissal.
  7. Judge R. Gordon abusedhis discretion when he failed to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to setting aside dismissal orders and failed to exercise sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making skills. The general principals and specific considerations that structure the exercise of this discretion are well established: see [page 695] Scaini v. Prochnicki (2007), 2007 ONCA 63 (Canll), 85 O.R. (3rd) 179, [2007] O.J. No. 299 (CA); Marche d’Alimentation Denis Theriault Ltee v. Giant Tiger Stores Ltd. (2007), 2007 ONCA 695 (Canll), 87 O.R. (3rd) 660, [2000] O.J. No. 3872 (CA; Finlay v. Van Paassen (2010), 2010 ONCA 204 (Canll), 101 O.R. (3rd) 390, [2010] O.J. No. 1097, 266 O.A.C. 239 (C.A.).
  8. That after having my licence suspend by the FRO, forced to pay the drivers license reinstatement fee to the MTO and forced to pay the FRO Director’s fee, then on February 13, 2015 judge R. Gordon issued an order that reflected the correct arrears in the amount $1050.00 was less than the amount that I was forced to pay in “fees” to the MTO and FRO ($1100.00).
  9. A lot of what goes on politically and in the courts is not rocket science. The “Judicial Branch”of government – Sudbury’s Judiciary and Ontario’s Attorney General (Registrar) and their “friends of the court” are operating as a racketeering crime syndicate implementing their own “rules” and have restructured the court system into a commercial corporation extorting money and the assets from families.
  10. I`ve asked for  another “administrative order” setting aside judge P. Kane’s award (Civil Suit Court File No. C-2835-13) and the cost orders that were entered by Sudbury AG Registrars K. Lyle and D. Rorison awarding:
    1. i) $15,000 to P. Diavolitsis, R. Nolin, G. McAndrew counsel for JJ Paquette, P. Meehan, P. Bradley, R. Parise
    2. ii) $15,000 to Nadia Marotta K. Boggs counsel for the Greater Sudbury Police Service;

    iii) $14,000 to P. Jacobs M. Boothe counsel for the Children’s Aid Society of Sudbury;

    iv) $11,000 to the Attorney General of Ontario’s N. Rathwell, B. Forson and M. Williams counsel for the Sudbury Crown Attorney defendants, J. Luczak, S. Bruce, J. Holland, MCSS, MCYS, and former Sudbury MPP R. Bartolucci.

The Sudbury MCSS, FRO and AG changed the amount allegedly owed to them on three different times!!!
1. September 8, 2014—$30,856.21 PLUS $400.00 enforcement fee claimed by Maria Aspens Director FRO.
2. September 23, 2014—$31,171.66 PLUS $400.00 enforcement fee claimed unidentifiable FRO Director.
3. September 24, 2014—$31,171.66 PLUS $400.00 enforcement fee claimed by Creselle Natola Director FRO.

The Liberals, FRO and judiciary can, and often do, deliberately ensure that the court process is taking too long and will take enforcement action against the payor. There are fees associated with every enforcement actions, for example a fee of $400 is charged to the payor if the FRO suspends their driver’s license. The fee structure takes money out of the hands of the children the office was set up to protect, especially when they charge a parent who has lost their job and their income. If the MCSS and FRO are neutral then shouldn’t no enforcement be taken if the payor is in the process of having it reviewed by the courts?

Ontario Liberals and the courts are capitalizing on this system to  ensure that parents who try to work with the system are punished with huge administration fees (payable to the FRO) and even jail time. Is it any wonder the FRO doesn’t want to wait for the courts when they have such a lucrative administration structure in place?
The FRO is a government agency and thus immune to extortion laws governing Canada. The assumption that payors who get into arrears do so willfully falls into the same line of thinking as guilty until proved innocent. Penalizing payors who are struggling financially and threatening their livelihood by taking away their driver’s license, putting them in prison, or destroying their reputation will not help the children or recipient. The FRO was originally set up to solve the problem of deadbeat dads,but at what point do we say: STOP And begin solving the problem of deadbeat politicians and their employees?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

WP Theme & Icons by N.Design Studio
Entries RSS Comments RSS Log in