ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE       Court File No.

NORTH EAST REGION

BETWEEN :

xxx                                                         Plaintiff          and

{ THE GREATER SUDBURY POLICE SERVICE, THE SUDBURY POLICE SERVICES BOARD AND SUDBURY POLICE ASSOCIATION M. PAQUETTE, CRAIG MAKI, ROBIN TIPLAY, M. JEFFERY, DAVID BECK, CRAIG MOXAM, TODD BIGNOCOLLO, DAN ZULIANNI, JEFF KUHN, SUSAN LEYS, TIM BURTT,  J. ROBERSTON, L. MCLOSKY, T. MARASSATO, P. SMYTH, ELAINA GROVES, SANDRA DICAIRE,  PAUL MCGEE, MEAGAN O’MALLEY, JACK SIVAZLIAN, DUNCAN EPP, M. ROBINSON, GREG BERGERON, FRANK ELSNER, Const. ELDEAMA                                                                                            Defendants     and

{ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO JOHN LUCZAK, KENDRICK ABBOTT, MERIEL ANDERSON, SUSAN BRUCE, MARC HUNEAULT, JOHN HOLLAND, LEILA MEHKERI, RUBY BECK, MICHEL J. MOREAU, MICHAEL G. KITLAR, SUSAN STOTHART, LEONARD KIM, DIANNE LAFLUER, ANDREA BEAL, RIA BIGNOCOLLO, HELENE BRYDGES                                Defendants    and

{PIERRE BRADLEY LAW OFFICE                                                      Defendants    and

{CHILDREN’S AID’S SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICTS OF SUDBURY AND MANITOULIN JEAN JACQUES PAQUETTE, REJEAN PARISE, COLLETTE PREVOST, NORA DOUGAN, LINDA CULLAIN, JEAN O’CONNER,  DARLENE WILSON, MICHELLE GLOVER, DONALD KINGSLEY, CANDICE POULIN, KAREN FAGEN, CHRISTY CROTEAU, DEBBIE LACELLE, LAURA FOX, JODY MARCOTTE, MS. BISAILLON, LOUISE BRENDA BEAUVAIS, JOSH NEGUSANTI                             ,,,,, Defendants     and

{ PATRICIA L. MEEHAN  MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER                                                                Defendants     and

{ SHEILA MILNE M..D.                                                                        Defendant       and

{ BRENDA PETRYNA                                                                           Defendant      and

{ HEALTH PROFFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD         Defendants     and                                                                                                                                           { THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD SUZANNE GILBERT AND  MR. OLIVER                                                                               Defendants     and

{ OFFFICE OF THE INDEPENDANT REVIEW DIRECTOR GERRY MCNEILLY, SUSAN DUNN-LUNDY, KIM MCDONALD, BERNIE MUILLER     Defendants     and

{ TERESA PIRUZZA MINISTRY OF CHILD + YOUTH SERVICES   Defendants   and

{ DEB MATHEWS MINISTRY OF HEALTH                                        Defendants    and

{ RICK BARTOLUCCI  MPP FOR SUDBURY ONTARIO, VICE CHAIR STANDING COMMITTE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES                                     Defendant

______________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

_______________________________________________________________________

TO THE DEFENDANTS —- A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

 

 

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff’s lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this Court Office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.

If you are served in another Province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.

Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.

IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM, and $1750 for court costs, within the time for serving and filing your defence, you may move to have this proceedings dismissed by the court. If you believe the amount claimed is exessive, the plainfif will consider counter offers or you can have the claim and costs assessed by the courts.

AND $750.00 FOR COSTS, WITHIN THE TIME FOR SERVING AND FILING YOUR STATEMENT OF DEFENCE, YOU MAY MOVE TO HAVE THIS PROCEEDING DISMISSED BY THE COURT. IF YOU BELIEVE THE AMOUNT CLAIMED FOR COSTS IN EXCESSIVE, YOU MAY PAY THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM AND $500.00 FOR COSTS AND HAVE THE COSTS ASSESSED BY THE COURT.

Date: ………………………………….                       Issued by: ………………………………………………

(Local Registrar 159 Elm St., Sudbury ON

 

TO:                                                                                                                                 Sudbury Police Service/Association         Ministry of the Attorney General                                                                                         190 Brady Street                                         155 Elm Street

Sudbury, Ontario P3E 1C7                          Sudbury, ON P3E 5M7                                                                                          Phone: (705) 675-9171                               Phone: (705)-564-7600
Pierre Bradley Law Office                        Children’s Aid Society of Sudbury and         176 Elim Street                                            Manitoulin 319 Lasalle Blvd. Unit 3     Sudbury, Ontario                                          Sudbury, Ontario                                          P3C 1T7                                                       P3A 1W7
The Sudbury Police Services Board          Rejean Parise                                                                            Jamie M. Canapini City Solicitor              S200-58 Lisgar Street                                                                    200 Brady PO Box 5000, Stn. A                   Sudbury, Ontario  P3E 3L7                                                                                               Sudbury, Ontario P3A 5P                              Phone: 705-674-4042
Patricia Meehan                                        Sheila Milne                                                   293 Elm Street                                             333 Homewood Ave.                                Sudbury, Ontario                                          Sudbury, Ontario                                            P3C 1V6                                                      P3E 3P6
Brenda Petryna                                          Health Proffessions Appeal+Review Board 487 Bouchard St.                                         151 Bloor St. W., 9th Floor                           Sudbury, Ontario                                          Toronto Ontario                                          P3E 1C7                                                       M5S 1S4
Child+Family Services Review Board       Office of the Independent Police            1075 Bay Street, 7th Floor

Review Director 655 Bay St.,10th Floor Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2B1                           Toronto, Ontario M7A 2T4

 


Ministry of Children and Youth Services    Ministry of Health+Longterm Care                                   M-1B114, Macdonald Block                           900 Bay Street                                                                     900 Bay Street,                                                M-1B114, Macdonald Block                     Toronto, Ontario M7A 1N3                            Toronto, Ontario M7A 1N3
Ministry of the Attorney General                Office of the Children’s Lawyer                                                                                                                                                               McMurtry-Scott Building                                 393 University Avenue, 14th Floor,                                                                                                                                                                                                          720 Bay Street, 11th Floor                               Toronto, ON                                                                                                                                                                     Toronto, ON M7A 2S9                                    M5G 1W9
Rick Bartolucci Sudbury MPP                     Paquette and Renzini                                                                                       93 Cedar Street Suite 302

40 Larch Street Suite 202 Sudbury, Ontario  P3E 1A7 Sudbury Ontario P3E 5M7  Phone: (705) 675-1914 P3E 5M7

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF CLAIM
CLAIM AGAINST THE GREATER SUDBURY POLICE SERVICE, THE SUDBURY POLICE SERVICES BOARD AND SUDBURY POLICE ASSOCIATION M. PAQUETTE, CRAIG MAKI, ROBIN TIPLAY, M. JEFFERY and THE OTHER DEFENDANTS
1. The Plaintiff claims:
a. general damages in the amount of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY
NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS
($1,989,898)  for the false arrest, negligent investigation, false imprisonment, malicous
prosection, conspiracy misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, tresspass, invasion
of privacy, neglegence, conspiracy, and tortious interference of the Plaintiff;
b. in addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of ONE MILLION
NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND
NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($1,989,898) for breach of the Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under s. 2, s. 7, s. 8, s. 9, s. 10, s. 11, s. 12, s. 15, and s. 24 (1) (2) of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms that flowed from the egregious false arrest, negligent investigation, wrongful imprisonment, malicous prosection, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, tresspass, invasion of pravacy, neglegence, conspiracy, and tortious interference against the Plaintiff; and convictions that resulted from evidence that illegitimately obtained and produced by the Defendants.
c. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims general damages in the amount of TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($2,989,898) for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation of character,
d. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims special damages in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND ($750,000) for the Plaintiff’s loss of time and interruption in emploment and routine of life and for expenses relating to obtaining release from custody;

e. in addition, and /or in the alternative, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount
of TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED AND SIX DOLLARS (2,979,796);
f.  pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act,
g. 43, section 128 and post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of section 129
of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

??

h. such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded as a result of the negligent,
malicious, egregious, high handed and contumelious conduct of the Defendants.

CLAIM AGAINST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO JOHN LUCZAK, KENDRICK ABBOTT, MERIEL ANDERSON, SUSAN BRUCE, MARC HUNEAULT and THE OTHER DEFENDANTS
2. The Plaintiff claims:
a. general damages in the amount of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($1,989,898) for the false arrest, negligent investigation, false imprisonment, malicous prosection, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, tresspass, invasion of pravacy, neglegence, conspiracy, and tortious interference of the Plaintiff;
b. in addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($1,989,898) for breach of the Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under s. 2, s. 7, s. 8, s .9, s. 10, s. 11, s. 12, s s. 15, and s. 24 (1) (2) of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms that flowed from the egregious false arrest, negligent investigation, wrongful imprisonment, malicous prosection, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, tresspass, invasion of pravacy, neglegence, conspiracy, and tortious interference againnst the Plaintiff;
c. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims general damages in the amount of TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($2,989,898) for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation of character,
d. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims special damages in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND ($750,000) for the Plaintiff’s loss of time and interruption in emploment and routine of life and for expenses relating to obtaining release from custody;

e. in addition, and /or in the alternative, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND SIX DOLLARS (2,979,796);
f.  pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 128 and post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

g. such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded as a result of the negligent, malicious, egregious, high handed and contumelious conduct of the Defendants.

CLAIM AGAINST PIERRE BRADLEY LAW OFFICE
3. The Plaintiff claims:
a. general damages in the amount of NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($989,898) for negligent investigation, maliciously commencing a child protection proceedings, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, and tortious interference of the Plaintiff;

b. in addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($989,898) for breach of the Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under s. 7, s. 11(d) 12, s.15, and s. 24 (1) (2) of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms that flowed from the egregious negligent child protection proceedings, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process investigation,and tortious interference of the Plaintiff’s relationship with his child that resulted;
c. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims general damages in the amount of EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($89,898) for the intentional infliction of alienation of affections, parental alienation, court abuse syndrome, emotional distress, and defamation of character,
d. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims special damages in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND ($750,000) for the Plaintiff’s loss of time and interruption in employment and routine of life and for expenses relating to the malicious child protection proceeding that was commenced by Pierre Bradley and Jean Jacque Paquette;
e. in addition, and /or in the alternative, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIVE DOLLARS ($1,979,795);
f. pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 128 and post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

g. such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded as a result of the malicious,egregious, high handed and contumelious conduct of the Defendant.
CLAIM AGAINST THE CHILDREN’S AID’S SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICTS OF SUDBURY AND MANITOULIN JEAN JACQUES PAQUETTE, REJEAN PARISE, COLLETTE PREVOST, NORA DOUGAN, LINDA CULLAIN and THE OTHER DEFENDANTS
4. The Plaintiff claims:
a. general damages in the amount of SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000) for commencing and procuring a malicious child protection proceeding,conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, and tortious interference against the Plaintiff;

b. in addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000) for breach of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights guaranteed under s. 7, s. 11(d) 12, s.15, and s. 24 (1) (2) of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms that flowed from the egregious and malicious child protection proceeding, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, and tortious interference against the Plaintiff and his child;

c. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims general damages in the amount of FOUR MILLION DOLLARS ($4,000,000) for the intentional infliction of alienation of affections, parental alienation, court abuse syndrome, emotional distress, and defamation of character

d. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims special damages SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND ($750,000) for the Plaintiff’s loss of time and interruption in employment and routine of life and for expenses relating to the malicious child protection proceeding that was commenced by Jean Jacque Paquette, Pierre Bradley and procured by Patricia Meehan, Rejean Parise and Patricia Meehan between August 2004 and April 2012.

e. in addition, and/or in the alternative, special damages in the amount of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) for failure to adequately supervise Sheila Milne’s treatment of the Plaintiff’s child that was the proximate cause of the injury suffered by the Plaintiff’s child, and including but not limited to past and future pain, suffering, medical expenses, and other damages,

f. in addition, and/or in the alternative, SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND ($750,000) for injuries and damages for failure to properly care and supervise the Plaintiff’s child in accordance with the standard of care and skill exercised by the average qualified Children’s Aid Society.

g. in addition, and /or in the alternative, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of ONE MILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,500,000);

h. in addition, the Plaintiff claims his cost and expenses in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAN DOLLARS ($750,000) for the false child protection proceedings between August 2004 and April 2012.

j. pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 128 and post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

k. such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded as a result of the malicious, egregious, high handed and contumelious conduct of the Defendants.

CLAIM AGAINST PATRICIA L. MEEHAN MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER
5. The Plaintiff claims:
a. general damages in the amount of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) for negligent investigation and maliciously procuring the child protection proceedings, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process and tortious interference of the Plaintiff;

b. in addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) for breach of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights guaranteed under s. 7, s. 11(d) 12, s.15, and s. 24 (1) (2) of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms that flowed from her procuring the child protection proceedings, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process and tortious interference of the Plaintiff and his child;
c. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims general damages in the amount of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) for the intentional infliction of alienation of affections, parental alienation, court abuse syndrome, emotional distress, and defamation of character;

d. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims special damages ONE MILLION ($1,000,000) for the Plaintiff’s loss of time and interruption in employment and routine of life and for expenses relating to the malicious child protection proceeding that was commenced by Pierre Bradley and procured by Jean Jacque Paquette, Rejean Parise and Patricia Meehan between August 2004 and April 2012.

e. in addition, and/or in the alternative, special damages in the amount of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) for failure to adequately supervise Sheila Milne’s treatment of the Plaintiff’s child that was the proximate cause of the injury suffered by the Plaintiff’s child, and including but not limited to past and future pain, suffering, medical expenses, and other damages,

f. in addition, and/or in the alternative, SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND ($750,000) for injuries and damages for failure to properly care and supervise the Plaintiff’s child in accordance with the standard of care and skill exercised by the average qualified appointed Children’s Lawyer .

g. in addition, and /or in the alternative, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,750,000);

h. in addition, the Plaintiff claims his cost and expenses in the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAN DOLLARS ($750,000) for his cost of the false child protection proceedings between August 2004 and April 2012.

h. pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 128 and post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

j. such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded as a result of the malicious, egregious, high handed and contumelious conduct of the Defendants.

CLAIM AGAINST SHEILA MILNE MD
6. The Plaintiff claims:
a. general damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS  ($250,000 ) for negligently practicing mental health on children and breaching the applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) standard of medical care owed to the Plaintiff and his child.

b. in addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS  ($250,000 ) for negligently prescribing Ritalin that was the proximate cause of the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff and his child.

c. in addition , and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAN DOLLARS  ($250,000 )  failing to properly care and supervise the Plaintiff’s in accordance with the standard of care and skill exercised by the average qualified physician engaged in medical practice at a professional level and negligently prescribed Ritalin at a titration rate that was quicker than normally accepted by the medical community,

d. in addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAN DOLLARS  ($250,000 )  emotional distress, alienation of affections, parental alienation and physical injury,

e. in addition , and/or in the alternative, special damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAN DOLLARS  ($250,000 )  for failure to adequately supervise the treatment of the Plaintiff’s child that was the proximate cause of the injury suffered by the Plaintiff’s child, and including but not limited to past and future pain, suffering, medical expenses, and other damages.

f. in addition, and/or in the alternative, punitive damages in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000);

g. pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 128 and post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

h. such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded as a result of the negligent, egregious, high handed and contumelious conduct of the Defendant.

??

CLAIM AGAINST BRENDA PETRYNA


7. The Plaintiff claims:
a. general damages in the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($12,500) for negligently engaging in activities that could interfere with the performance of her duties as a public servant and member on the Health Professions Appeal and review Board (HPARB).

 

b. in addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($12,500) contravening the Conflict of Interest Rules.

c. in addition, and/or in the alternative, punitive damages in the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000); for contravening the Conflict of Interest Act and Public Sector Service Act.

d. in addition, pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 128 and post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

e. such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded as a result of the negligent conduct of the Defendant.

CLAIM AGAINST HEALTH PROFFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD
8. The Plaintiff claims:
a. general damages in the amount of FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($4,989,898) negligent investigation, false evidence, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, breach of duty and tortious interference of the Plaintiff and his child;

b. in addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($2,989,898) for breach of the Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under s. 2, s. 7, s. 8, s .9, s. 10, s. 11, s. 12, s. 15, and s. 24 (1) (2) of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms that flowed from the egregious negligent investigation, false evidence, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, and tortious interference of the Plaintiff and his child;

c. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims general damages in the amount of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($1,989,898) for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation of character,

d. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims special damages in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLLARS ($575,000) for the Plaintiff’s loss of time and interruption in employment and routine of life and for expenses relating to past and future medical expenses;

e. in addition, and /or in the alternative, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIVE DOLLARS ($4,979,795);                                                                            f. pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 128 and post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

g. such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded as a result of the malicious, egregious, high handed and contumelious conduct of the Defendants.

CLAIM AGAINST THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD SUZANNE GILBERT AND MR. OLIVER


9. The Plaintiff claims:
a. general damages in the amount of FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($4,989,898) for conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, breach of duty and tortious interference of the Plaintiff and his child;

b. in addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($2,989,898) for breach of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights as guaranteed by s. 2, s. 7, s. 8, s .9, s. 10, s. 11, s. 12, s s. 15, and s. 24 (1) (2) of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms that flowed from the egregious conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, breach of duty and tortious interference of the Plaintiff and his child;

c. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims general damages in the amount of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($1,989,898) for the intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation of character,

d. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims special damages in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLLARS ($575,000) for the Plaintiff’s loss of time and interruption in employment and routine of life and for expenses relating to obtaining access;

e. in addition, and /or in the alternative, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIVE DOLLARS ($4,979,795);                                                                              f. pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 128 and post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

g. such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded as a result of the malicious, egregious, high handed and contumelious conduct of the Defendants.

 

CLAIM AGAINST OFFFICE OF THE INDEPENDANT REVIEW DIRECTOR GERRY MCNEILLY, SUSAN DUNN-LUNDY, KIM MCDONALD, BERNIE MUILLER
10. The Plaintiff claims:
a. general damages in the amount of FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($4,989,898) negligent investigation, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, breach of duty, and tortious interference of the Plaintiff;

b. in addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($2,989,898) for breach of the Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under s. 2, s. 7, s. 8, s .9, s. 10, s. 11, s. 12, s. 15, and s. 24 (1) (2) of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms that flowed from the egregious negligent investigation, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, and tortious interference of the Plaintiff;

c. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims general damages in the amount of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($1,989,898) for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation of character,

d. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims special damages in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLLARS ($575,000) for the Plaintiff’s expenses as a result of loss of time and interruption in employment and routine of life,

e. in addition, and /or in the alternative, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIVE DOLLARS ($4,979,795);                                                              f. pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 128 and post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

g. such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded as a result of the malicious, egregious, high handed and contumelious conduct of the Defendants.

CLAIM AGAINST TERESA PIRUZZA MINISTRY OF CHILD AND YOUTH SERVICES


11. The Plaintiff claims:
a. general damages in the amount of FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($4,989,898) breach of duty, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, and tortious interference of the Plaintiff;

b. in addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($4,989,898) for breach of the Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under s. 2, s. 7, s. 8, s .9, s. 10, s. 11, s. 12, s. 15, and s. 24 (1) (2) of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms that flowed from the breach of duty, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, and tortious interference of the Plaintiff;

c. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims general damages in the amount of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($1,989,898) for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation of character,

d. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims special damages SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND ($750,000) for the Plaintiff’s loss of time and interruption in employment and routine of life and for expenses relating to obtaining access to his child;

e. in addition, and /or in the alternative, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIVE DOLLARS ($4,979,795);                                                                       f. pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 128 and post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

g. such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded as a result of the malicious, egregious, high handed and contumelious conduct of the Defendants.

CLAIM AGAINST DEB MATHEWS MINISTRY OF HEALTH
12. The Plaintiff claims:
a. general damages in the amount of FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($4,989,898) for beach of public duty, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, and tortious interference of the Plaintiff;

b. in addition, and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($2,989,898) for breach of the Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under s. 2, s. 7, s. 8, s .9, s. 10, s. 11, s. 12, s. 15, and s. 24 (1) (2) of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms that flowed from the egregious beach of public duty, conspiracy, misfeasance of public office and tortious interference of the Plaintiff;

c. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims general damages in the amount of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($1,989,898) for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation of character,

d. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims special damages SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND ($750,000) for the Plaintiff’s loss of time and interruption in employment and routine of life and for expenses relating to obtaining access to his child and breaching the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 621111, which is a standard to practice general health medicine.

e. in addition, and /or in the alternative, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of FOUR MILLION NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIVE DOLLARS ($4,979,795);
f. pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 128 and post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

g. such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded as a result of the malicious, egregious, high handed and contumelious conduct of the Defendants.

CLAIM AGAINST RICK BARTOLUCCI MPP FOR SUDBURY ONTARIO, VICE CHAIR STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
13. The Plaintiff claims:
a. general damages in the amount of SEVEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($7,989,898) for the conspiracy, malicious prosecution, breach of public duty, misfeasance in public office, and tortious interference of the Plaintiff;

b. in addition , and/or in the alternative, general damages in the amount of SEVEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($7,989,898) for breach of the Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under s. 2, s. 7, s. 8, s .9, s. 10, s. 11, s. 12, s. 15, and s. 24 (1) (2) of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms that flowed from the egregious conspiracy, malicious prosecution, breach of public duty, misfeasance in public office, and tortious interference of the Plaintiff;

c. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims general damages in the amount of SEVEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINTEY EIGHT DOLLARS ($7,989,898) for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation of character,

d. in addition, and/or in the alternative, the Plaintiff claims special damages SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND ($750,000) for the Plaintiff’s loss of time and interruption in employment and routine of life and for expenses relating to conduct his agents or servants;

e. in addition, and /or in the alternative, aggravated and punitive damages in the amount of THIRTEEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIVE DOLLARS ($13,979,795);
f. pre-judgement interest pursuant to the provision of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43, section 128 and post-judgement interest pursuant to the provisions of section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;

g. such further and other relief as may be claimed or awarded as a result of the malicious, egregious, high handed and contumelious conduct of the Defendants.

THE PARTIES

14. The Plaintiff, is a 47 year old self employed man who at all material times was a resident of Ontario and states that he was the victim of malicious prosecution,false arrest,false imprisonment, malicious child protection proceeding, negligence, conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, invasion of privacy, trespass a result of the tortious interference by the Defendants against the Plaintiff.

15. The Defendants Greater Sudbury Police Service, the Sudbury Police Service Board, Sudbury Police Association, Special Constable M. Paquette, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady Badge 6221, M. Jeffery Badge 7690, David Beck, Craig Moxam, Todd Bignicollo, Dan Zulliani, Jeff Kuhn, Susan Leys, Tim Burnt, J. Roberston Badge 8101, L. McClosky, T. Marassato, Badge 7684, P. Smyth Badge 5478, Elaina Groves, Sandra DiCaire Badge 7685 and Badge 2752, Paul McGee, Meagan O’Malley, Jack Sivazlian, Duncan Epp, M. Robinson, Greg Bergeron, Frank Elsner, Constable Eldeama Badge 7636 were at all times employed by the Sudbury Police Services Board. The Defendant Sudbury Police services Board is a municipal police services board incorporated pursuant to the provisions of the Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990, Chap. P.15 and was at all material times responsible for the provisions of police services, law enforcement and crime prevention in the city of Sudbury as interpreted by municipal lawyers including Jamie Canapini and Co. The board, by virtue of section 50(1) of the Police services Act, R.S.O., c.P.15 as amended, and the common law, and are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

??

16.  The Defendants Attorney General for Ontario:


a. John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Mieriel Anderson, Susan Bruce Marc Huneault, John Holland, Leila Mehkeri, Susan Stothart, Leonard Kim were at all material times employed by or acting on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General as provincial prosecutors for the crown and was at all material times responsible for enforcing the law and crime prevention by virtue of section 6.(1) of the Crown Attorney Act and the Criminal Code and are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

??


b. Ruby Beck, Michel J. Moreau,Dianne Lafleur, Michel J. Michael G. Kitlar were at all material times employed by or acting on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General as Justice of the Peace and were at all material times responsible for the provisions of enforcing the law and crime prevention by virtue of section 2.(10) of the Justices of the Peace Act and, are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
c. Mieriel Anderson, Ria Bignocolo, Andrea Beal, and Helene Brydges were at all material times employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General as court reports and or assistants to the Attorney General for Ontario by virtue of 6.(1) of the Crown Attorney Act and the Public Service of Ontario Act, and were at all times responsible for production of certified court transcripts and evidence and, are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

??

17. The Defendants Pierre Bradley operates a private company known as Pierre Bradley Law Office located in Sudbury Ontario, employed by Legal Aid Ontario and the Attorney General; and failed to act in accordance with the Child and Family Services act (CFSA), Rules of Professional Conduct, Code of Ethics and when he commence the malicious child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff and his family, and is vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

??

18. The Defendant Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin (CAS) is a private corporation under agreement with the Ministry of Child and Youth Services to provide child protective services to families living in the districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin.


a. Jean Jacque Paquette operates a private business (Paquette and Renzini)
b. Rejean Parise operates a private business (Parise Law)
c. Pierre Bradley operates a private business (Bradley Law Office);
d. John Luczak and Kendrick Abbott operate a business known Sudbury Crown Attorney’s Office
e. Jamie Canipini runs the corporation known as the City of Sudbury; And failed to act in accordance with the Child and Family Services act (CFSA), Provincial Offense Act, Criminal Code, Rules of Professional Conduct, Code of Ethics and Ontario Regulation 453/97 when he commence the malicious child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff and his family, and is vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff and hos child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
19. Jean Jacques Paquette, Rejean Parise, Collette Prevost Nora Dougan, Linda Cullain, Jean O’Conner, Darlene Wilson, Michelle Glover, Donald Kinsley, Candice Polin-Mikic, Karen Fagen, Christy Croteau, Debbie Lacelle, Laura Fox, Jody Marcotte, Ms. Bisaillon, Loiuse+Brenda Beauvais and Josh Negusnati were all employed by the CAS and were all material times illegally practicing social work in Ontario contravening Ontario Regulation 453/97; and are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

??

20. The Defendants Patricia Meehan operates a private company known as Patricia Meehan Law Office located in Sudbury Ontario, employed by Legal Aid Ontario and the Attorney General Office of the Children’s Lawyer; failed to act in accordance with the Child and Family Services act (CFSA), Rules of Professional Conduct, Code of Ethics when she procured the malicious child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff and his family, and is vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and his child and; damages and violations of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


a. Jean Jacque Paquette operates a private business (Paquette and Renzini)
b. John Luczak and Kendrick Abbott operate a business known Sudbury Crown Attorney’s Office,
c. Rejean Parise operates a private business (Parise Law)
d. Pierre Bradley operates a private business (Bradley Law Office);
e. Patricia Meehan operates a private business known as Patricia Meehan Law Office,
f. Jamie Canipini operates the corporation known as the City of Sudbury; And all failed to act in accordance with the Child and Family Services act (CFSA), Provincial Offense Act, Criminal Code, Rules of Professional Conduct, Code of Ethics, etc when they commence the malicious child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff and his family, and charged and maliciously prosecuted the Plaintiff for contravening s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act; and are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

21. The Defendant Sheila Milne MD operates a private company located in Sudbury Ontario registered under General Health Practitioners and failed to act in accordance with the Regulated Health Professions Act and breached the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 621111, which is a standard to practice general health medicine, except mental health; and is vicariously liable damages including physical injury and trauma that resulted from her negligently prescribing Ritalin at a titration rate that was quicker than normally accepted by the medical community.

22. The Defendant Brenda Petryna aka Petryna Advertising is a private company located in Sudbury Ontario that provides Consulting and Strategic Planning for the Defendants and or their agents/servants including website development, marketing, research and polling. Brenda Petryna was employed as a legal Assistant with Lacroix Forest Law Office in Sudbury Ontario and breached her duty to ensure her function as a Health Professions Appeal and Review Board member were preformed without any conflict of interest and objectively when she failed to recuse herself from the CFSRB that presided over the Plaintiff’s complaint against Sheila Milne’s negligent treatment of his child that fell below the North American Industry Classification System Standard;
a. Lacroix Forest Law Office is a private business and employed Brenda Petryna as a
legal assistant,
b. Jean Jacque Paquette operates a private business (Paquette and Renzini)
c. John Luczak and Kendrick Abbott operate a business known Sudbury Crown
Attorney’s Office.
d. Rejean Parise operates a private business (Parise Law)
e. Pierre Bradley operates a private business (Bradley Law Office and Legal Aid Ontario);
f. Patricia Meehan operates a private business known as Patricia Meehan Law Office
g. Jamie Canapini operates the corporation known as the City of Sudbury; And all failed to act in accordance with Conflict of interest Rule, Public Sector Service Act, the Child and Family Services act (CFSA), Provincial Offense Act, Criminal Code, Rules of Professional Conduct, Code of Ethics, etc when they commence the malicious child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff and his family, and charged and maliciously prosecuted the Plaintiff for contravening s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act; and are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

23. The Defendants Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) is established under the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Appeal and is a quasi-judicial tribunal with legal authority by virtue of the Regulated Health Professions Act, Drug and Pharmacies and the Public Hospitals Act and other Acts of Parliament. HSARB and an unknown investigator from the College of Physicians and Surgeons breached the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 621111, which is a standard to practice general health medicine, except mental health; when they allege to have obtained an anonymous opinion regarding the Plaintiff’s complaint against Sheila Milne; and is vicariously liable damages including physical injury and trauma that resulted when Sheila Milne negligently prescribed Ritalin at a titration rate that was quicker than normally accepted by the medical community.

24. The Defendants Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) Suzanne Gilbert, Mr. Oliver and unknown members is established under the Child and Family Services Act and is a quasi-judicial tribunal with legal authority by virtue of the (CFSA) and is responsible for reviewing certain actions and decisions made by Children’s Aid Societies; and told the Plaintiff that “there is no way that the CFSRB can help you get your access back”. The CFSRB promoted the illegal practice of social work in Ontario contravening Ontario Regulation 453/97; and are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and his child, damages and violations of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

25. The Defendants Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) Gerry McNealy, Susan Dunn-Lundy, Kim McDonald and Bernie Mieuller are a an arms-length agency of the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, and responsible for the investigation of complaints against Police and law enforcement. The Independent Police Review Act 2007, sets out the powers and responsibilities of the OIPRD and the police under the Police complaints system who claim “to make sure that the public complaints system is working for everyone”. The OIPRD failed to interview any witness and promoted police misconduct; and are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and his child, damages and violations of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

26. The Defendants Teresa Piruzza MPP Windsor West and Ministry of Child and Youth Services (MCYS), and the had ultimate control over government policies that were exercised during their administration by virtue of the Ministry of Health Appeal and Review Boards Act and the Child and Family Services Act; and approved funding for the Sudbury Children’s Aid Society and are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and his child, damages and violations of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
27. The Defendants Deb Mathews MPP London North Centre and Ministry of Health T and former Minister of Child and Youth Services (MCYS), had ultimate control over government policies that were exercised during their administration by virtue of the Ministry of Health Appeal and Review Boards Act, Child and Family Services Act, Drug and Pharmacies Act, Public Hospitals Act and other Acts of Parliament including the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and his child, damages and violations of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

28. The Defendant Rick Bartolucci is the MPP for Sudbury Ontario and the Vice-Chair for the Standing Committee on Government Agencies including CAS, Police, Physicians and Surgeons and the Courts), failed his duty to ensure the administration of justice in Sudbury Ontario was preformed objectively and to acceptable standards and is vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and his child, damages and violations of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
CAUSE OF ACTION MATERIAL FACTS M A T E R I A L  F A C T S

29. The Plaintiff was employed for nine years before meeting Melissa Verhagen (MV) in October 1995. The Plaintiff had no family history of violence, mental illness or drug abuse. MV was unemployed and did have a family history of domestic violence, mental illness, drug abuse, and then of making false allegations against the Plaintiff. Both MV and Dianne Fisher aka Dianne Verhagen aka by other various aliases have a history with Sudbury MPP Rick Bartolucci, the Sudbury Mental Health Association, the Children’s Aid Society, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kedrick Abbott,Pierre Bradley, Susan Bruce, Robin Tiplady, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, the Police Association, Brenda Petryna and the other Defendants.

30. On August 20th, November 23rd, December 8th, December 28th, and December 30th, 1996, the Plaintiff reported to the Police (five times) that he had been assaulted and was a victim of domestic violence. In in all five incidents of domestic violence, the Plaintiff was assaulted by MV and suffered injuries that were documented in Police notes and legitimate Police occurrence reports.

31. On or about March 7, 1997 MV and Dianne Fisher aka Dianne Verhagen, for improper purposes made false allegations to the Police. The GSPS without any reasonable or probable grounds arbitrarily detained, arrested, imprisoned and prosecuted the Plaintiff without a warrant and without legal authority for two counts of uttering threats and one count of careless storage of a firearm against MV pursuant to section 264.1(1), s.129(a) and 86(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC). The Police acted with malice searched the Plaintiff’s residence and seized his .22 caliber antique rifle that was in two separate pieces, missing the fire pin and unable to fire a round, and hidden in the closet. The Plaintiff did not resist the arrest, but did assert that the police had no right to arrest him, prosecute him or seize his antique riffle. The Plaintiff was held against his will and without consent, placed in a cell for approximately 16 hours and held in custody for bail and later advised of an additional charge of threatening. On August 13, 1997, the matter proceeded to trial and the GSPS provided information to that crown that was known to be false to maliciously prosecute the Plaintiff. The Crown acted with improper motive, purpose and in contravention of the standard required by law when he blacked mailed the Plaintiff to plead guilty to assaulting MV and careless storage of a firearm pursuant to s. 86(2) of the Criminal Code and in exchange for the guilty plea, the Crown proposed to withdraw three counts of uttering death threats contrary to s. 264(1) of the CCC. The Plaintiff under duress, financial hardship, to save his employment and to put an end to the malicious prosecution, was forced to accepted the Crown’s proposal and plead guilty to assault and careless storage of a firearm pursuant to s. 86(2) of the Criminal Code. The Police, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants withdrew three counts of uttering death threats. The Plaintiff reconciled with MV and returned to work to support their eight month old child.

4. On July 11,1997 the Plaintiff reported to the Police that he was assaulted by MV. Constable Ealdama Badge 7636 documented the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff in his notes , John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Robin Tiplady, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, and the other Defendants Constable Ealdama and the other Defendants did have reasonable grounds to believe that an assault was committed against the Plaintiff and that an arrest was necessary pursuant to the Criminal Code. failed to protect the Plaintiff.

32. On July 21, 1997 MV made false allegations to the Police. M. Jeffery Badge 7690 and Robin Tiplady Badge 6221 without investigation and for improper purposes arrested, detained, imprisoned and prosecuted the Plaintiff without a warrant legal authority. The Defendants arrested the Plaintiff for assault and uttering threats contrary to section 266 and 264.1(1) of the CCC and then taken to the Sudbury Police station and held against his will and without consent. The Plaintiff did not resist the arrest, but did assert that the police had no right to arrest the Plaintiff. On October 9th 1997 the matter proceeded to trial and John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce acted with improper motive and in contravention of the standard required by law when they black mailed the Plaintiff to plead guilty to assault and in exchange, the charges of uttering threats and breach of probation would be withdrawn. The Plaintiff under duress, financial hardship and to save his employment plead guilty to assault, reconciled with MV and returned to work to support his family.

33. On April 7, 1998 MV made false allegations to the Police. T. Marassato Badge 7684 and P. Smyth Badge 5478 and the other Defendants without investigation and for improper purposes arbitrarily detained, arrested, imprisoned and prosecuted the Plaintiff without a warrant and without legal authority. The Plaintiff did not resist the arrest, but did assert that the police had no right to arrest him or prosecute him.The Plaintiff was arrested for one count of assault against MV and three counts of breach of probation contrary to the CCC and then taken to the Sudbury Police station and held against his will and without consent. The Plaintiff was placed in a cell overnight and held in custody for bail the following morning. On October 22th, 1998 the matter proceeded to trial and John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and others in the Sudbury Crown attorney office acted with improper motive and purpose in contravention of the standard required by law black mailed the Plaintiff to plead guilty to assault in exchange all other charges would be withdrawn. The Plaintiff under duress, financial hardship and to save his employment agreed to plead guilty to assault, reconciled with MV, and returned to work to support their family. The Defendants deliberately failed their duty to ensure the charges against the Plaintiff met the Ministry’s screening standard and that all available legal proof of the facts was presented impartially, fairly, and objectively.

34. On June 29 1999, MV made false allegations to the Police and then asked them how she should “take care of her situation” and became an “extended” member of the Sudbury Police Association to which extended members receive perks and bonus from the other Defendants. J. Roberstson Badge 8101, L. McClusky, Special Constable M. Paquette,John Luczack, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants for their own self promotion continue to harass, falsely arrest, unlawfully detain, deny access, and maliciously prosecute the Plaintiff on allegations that were and are known to be false and malicious.

35.That John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the others Defendants were unsuccessful in their prosecution of an individual that was charged with possession three pounds of opium and the charges were dismissed due to a technicality.

36. On December 22, 1999, the Plaintiff, after having attended six martial counselling sessions with MV, informed the Police and Crown attorney that MV was observed manic and delusional by two mental health professionals when she made the false allegations against the Plaintiff and to stop arresting and prosecuting the Plaintiff.

37. On December 23rd, 1999 MV made false allegations to the Police. Sandra Dicaire Badge 7685 and Special Constable M. Paquette Badge 2752 and the other Defendants without investigation and for improper purposes arbitrarily detained, arrested, imprisoned and prosecuted the Plaintiff without a warrant and without legal authority on allegations that were known to be false. At the time of his arrest, the Plaintiff was not engaged in any unlawful activity and the Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that he had committed a criminal offence or was about to commit a criminal offence and that an arrest was necessary. The Plaintiff did not resist the arrest, but did assert that the police had no right to arrest or prosecute him. The Plaintiff was arrested for one count of assault, and one count of assault causing bodily harm against MV, and three counts of breach of probation pursuant to section 264.1(1), s.266(a) and s.145 of the Criminal Code and then taken to the Sudbury Police station and held against his will and without consent. The Plaintiff was placed in a cell overnight and held in custody and denied bail. On August 21, 2000, the matter proceeded to trial and the proceedings were terminated in favour of the Plaintiff when he was found not guilty and the other charges were dismissed. On November 23, 2000, the Plaintiff was found not guilty of assault, uttering threats and breach of probation s.264.1 and s.266 of the CCC as a result of charges that were laid by Constable M. Paquette Badge # 2752The Crown Attorney and GSPS deliberately failed their duty to ensure the charges against the Plaintiff met the Ministry’s screening standard and that all available legal proof of the facts was presented impartially, fairly, objectively.

38. On or about September 20, 2000 Special Constable M. Paquette, MV and Dianne Fisher for improper purposes and with the intent to injure the Plaintiff filed a malicious “non emergency” child protection report with the Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin (CAS) lawyer Jean Jacque Paquette. The allegations made by MV and Dianne Fisher against the Plaintiff were known by the Defendants to be false and used for their own self promotion and to injure the Plaintiff.

39. October 19, 2000 Dianne Fisher and MV, acted with bad intention when she contacted Elaina Groves at the Domestic Violence Court to report that the Plaintiff’s child had told her that he hits him across the face. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated. The allegations made by MV and Dianne Fisher against the Plaintiff were known by the Defendants to be false and used for their own self promotion and to injure the Plaintiff.

40. In September 2000 the Plaintiff and MV separated.

41. On November 23, 2000, the Plaintiff was found not guilty of assault, uttering threats, assault causing bodily harm and breach of probation as a result of charges that were laid by M. Paquette Badge # 2752 and Sandra Dicaire Badge 7685 on allegations that were known to be false. Megan O’Malley acted with bad intention when Megan she approached and entered the Plaintiff’s vehicle looking for sex. Meagan O’Malley entrapped the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff would satisfy her request for payment after she performed a sexual act on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff refused the amount of payment that was proposed by Meagan O’Malley and she existed the Plaintiff’s vehicle and gave the signal to Craig Moxam, and Craig Maki to surrounded the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Craig Moxam did not have reasonable and probable grounds to demand that the Plaintiff provide a breath sample or that he had committed any offence. The Plaintiff had knowledge of a restraining order against Craig Moxam that was obtained by another citizen and refused to provide a breath sample. Craig Moxam, and Craig Maki charged the Plaintiff with impaired driving, refusing to provide a breath sample, and communication for prostitution (MPP Rick Bartolucci’s private members Bill). The Plaintiff did not resist the arrest, but did assert that the police had no right to arrest or prosecute him, then taken to the Sudbury Police station and held against his will and without consent. The Plaintiff was placed in a cell overnight and held in custody and released on bail. The matter proceeded to trial and on June 28, 2001, Kendrick Abbott’s legal assistant Mieriel Anderson provided the court with her affidavit explaining to the court that the Police video which was requested by the Plaintiff to disprove Craig Moxam’s testimony regarding the caution flags “emotionally unstable” was misplaced by the Defendants and unavailable for the trial. At the conclusion of the trial, Judge Guay in contravention of the standard required by law convicted the Plaintiff of communication for prostitution and refusing to provide a breath sample and sentenced him to 90 days in jail to be served on weekends and his license was suspended for five years. The Plaintiff under duress, financial hardship and to save his employment did not appeal the decision because his drivers licence was not required for his employment. After the trial Craig Maki remarked to the Plaintiff that “the law can be enforced in two ways”. he Defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds for pressing charges, procuring the prosecution, conviction and punishment of the Plaintiff. The Defendants conduct was a deliberate and baseless exercise of public function, intended to injure the Plaintiff.

42. On January 8, 2001 Special Constable M. Paquette and Sgt McClusky responded to the Plaintiff’s complaint of false arrest, wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution and told him that “women get beat up too”. M. Paquette did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff had committed a criminal offence or was about to commit a criminal offence and that an arrest was Constable M. Paquette provided false and biased information used by CAS lawyer Jean Jacque Paquette and the Crown attorney to maliciously prosecute the Plaintiff. The Defendants were aware that their actions were unlawful and intended to injure the Plaintiff, further MV’s vendetta against the Plaintiff and lay the foundation for CAS lawyer Jean Jacque Paquette to commence a false and baseless child protection hearing against the Plaintiff.

43. On June 28, 2001 John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Craig Moxam, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady and the other Defendants acted with improper motive when their legal secretary Mieriel Anderson filed an affidavit swearing under oath that the Police video in which Craig Moxam and Craig Maki falsely alleged the Plaintiff to be emotionally unstable has been misplaced and is not available for the court. Cautions flags are based on an officers observations, including notes and legitimate police occurrence reports relating to any legitimate police occurrence. The Plaintiff claims that Kendrick Abbott and Craig Moxam’s occurrence reports, crown briefs and crown prosecutions are not legitimate. The Defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds for assigning the caution flags “emotionally unstable” .The Defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds for entrapping, assigning the caution flags “emotionally unstable” and prosecuting the Plaintiff.

44. In July 2001 Legal Aid Sudbury Pierre Bradley acted with improper motives and bad intention when he advised the Plaintiff that there were no grounds for appealing any of his convictions. The Plaintiff filed and pursued a lengthy complaint against Pierre Bradley with the Law Society. Pierre Bradley in a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function was in conflict of interest and had an axe to grind with the Plaintiff when he represented MV later in the 2004 at the false CAS child protection proceedings initiated by Jean Jacque Paquette.

45. On February 13, 2002 Chief Ian Davidson after a meeting with the Plaintiff confirmed that he has removed the caution flag “emotionally unstable” that were being maliciously associated with his name. Cautions flags are based on an officers observations, including notes and legitimate police occurrence reports relating to any legitimate police occurrence. The Plaintiff claims that John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jean Jacque Paquette, M. Paquette, Craig Moxam, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady occurrence reports, crown briefs and crown prosecutions are not legitimate.

46. On July 4, 2002, the Plaintiff brought an application to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for an order for joint custody of his child. The Plaintiff submitted a plan for Joint Parenting to the courts in support of his application. The Superior court ordered a report to be completed by the Social Work Report of the Children’s Lawyer and the application for joint parenting continued on January 28, 29, 30, and concluded on January 31st 2002. The Social Work Report of the Children’s Lawyer reported that MV had reservations about her pregnancy, but that the Plaintiff was pleased with the news. On February 19, 2002, the Superior Court, after considering the Social Work Report of the Children’s Lawyer, the Plaintiff’s Plan for Joint Parenting and the nature of the Plaintiff’s “on-call” employment, released the courts reasons for judgement and awarded the Plaintiff access Tuesday and Thursday 3:00 pm to 6:30 pm and Wednesday 3 pm – 7 pm during the school year and 8:30 pm when not in the school year, every other weekend and shared holidays and birthdays.

47. On November 22nd, 2002, Collette T. Prevost Director for the Sudbury Children’s Aid Society was suspended from the Ontario College of Social Workers.

48. On or about November 27, 2002, John Rodriguez who was the school principal at St. David school called the Plaintiff in Toronto and informed him a situation at his child’s school, and as a result he was being kept after school for detentions. John Rodriquez said that the after school detentions were not working to address the issue and that the school was unable and unwilling to accommodate MV’s request to keep his child for even longer after school detentions. The Plaintiff informed the principal that he will return to Sudbury as soon as he can to deal with the issue.

49. On December 2nd, 2003, the Plaintiff returned to Sudbury and met with his child’s school principal John Rodriquez. The Plaintiff exercised his access and within a couple days discovered and corrected the issue at the school. The Plaintiff communicated to MV what he thought were the cause the issues their child was having at his school. MV and her live in boyfriend at the time felt threatened and violently opposed any drug screens. The Plaintiff returned to Toronto to work support his family.

50. December 22, 2003 the Plaintiff returned to Sudbury for Christmas holidays and notified John Rodriquez that he would be exercising his Superior court access order and will be picking up his child after school at 3:30. John Rodriquez notified MV of the Plaintiff’s intentions and MV for improper purposes attended with her live in boyfriend to meet the Plaintiff and file more false charges against the Plaintiff. There were no witnesses to any of their allegations.

51. On December 23, 2003 MV made false allegations to the Police. Paul McGee, Craig Moxam, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, for improper purposes telephoned the Plaintiff and told him that there was only one charge of assault against MV and that if he surrendered himself to Plolice, he would be released in time for the Christmas Holidays and then to be able to return to work in Toronto to support his family. However, when the Plaintiff turned himself in to Ploice, he discovered that there was a total of eighteen charges against him including assault, uttering threats, criminal harassment and breach of probation against MV and her live in boyfriend. Paul McGee, Craig Moxam, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady,without investigation and for improper purposes arbitrarily detained, arrested, imprisoned and prosecuted the Plaintiff without a warrant and without legal authority on allegations that were known to be false. At the time of his arrest, the Plaintiff was not engaged in any unlawful activity and the Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that he had committed a criminal offence or was about to commit a criminal offence and that an arrest was necessary. The Plaintiff did not resist the arrest, but did assert that the police had no right to arrest or prosecute him and then taken to the Sudbury Police station and held against his will and without consent. The Plaintiff was placed in a cell overnight and held in custody for bail the following morning.. The Plaintiff was not released and further denied bail until trial and blackmailed to plead guilty in order to be released. The matter proceeded to trial and on February 13, 2004, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants blackmailed the Plaintiff to plead guilty to criminal harassment against MV and in exchange the Crown would withdraw all the other charges. The Plaintiff under duress, financial hardship, to be released from prison and to save his employment plead guilty to Criminal harassment and was sentenced to sixty days in jail. The Plaintiff was forced to take his holidays to serve the sentence. The Plaintiff was unjustly incarcerated from December 23, 2003 to March 13, 2004. The Defendants were aware that their actions were unlawful, malicious and likely to injure the Plaintiff and intended for their own self promotion.

52. On August 30, 2004, Jean Jacque Paquette, Pierre Bradley, Donald Kinsley and the other Defendants in contravention of the standard required by the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA), initiated a false child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff. Jean Jacque Paquette, Pierre Bradley, Donald Kinsley and the other Defendant’s failed to conduct a prudent investigation, consider relevant evidence and deliberately excluded witnesses before beginning the child protecting proceeding against the Plaintiff. Judge Richard Humphrey granted the Defendants a child protection order against the Plaintiff in his absence. Donald Kinsley illegally practiced social work in the Province of Ontario. Jean Jacque Paquette, Pierre Bradley, Donald Kinsley and the other Defendant’s conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function intended to procure the false child protection proceeding and injure the Plaintiff.

53. On August 31th 2004, Jean Jacque Paquette and Pierre Bradley acted with improper motive when they conspired against the Plaintiff in his absence and obtained a false child protection order against with the intent to block drug screening. Judge Richard Humphrey granted the Defendants the false child protection order for supervised access in the Plaintiff’s absence. The false child protection proceeding defeated the 2002 Superior court access order and granted Jean Jacque, Pierre Bradley, Patricia Meehan, MV and the other Defendants complete discretion over any access and the responsibility to protect and promote the best interests of the Plaintiff’s child. Jean Jacque Paquette had an ax to grind with the Plaintiff regarding his complaint against Constable M. Paquette that concluded on January 8th, 2001. Pierre Bradley acted with malice and with improper motives and was in conflict of interest when he represented MV at the false child protection proceedings. Pierre Bradley had an axe to grind with the Plaintiff from earlier in July 2001 regarding his biased opinion regarding the Plaintiff’s request to appeal his convictions. Jean Jacque Paquette, Pierre Bradley, Donald Kingsley and the other Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a child was at risk or suffered abuse or that protection or supervised access was necessary pursuant to the Child and Family Service Act.

54. On November 29, 2004 Candice Poulin supervised an access visit between the Plaintiff and his child and falsely claimed that the Plaintiff was causing emotional abuse to his child by repeatedly asking in appropriate questions. Candice Poulin has never been a member of the Ontario College of Social Work. Candice Poulin illegally practiced social work in the Province of Ontario. Candice Poulin procured the false child protection order for her own self promotion.

55. In December 2004, Jean Jacque Paquette for improper purposes told the Plaintiff to “mind his own business”.

56. On December 24th, 2004 Linda Cullain, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants acted for their own self promotion when they told the Plaintiff that he would not be allowed to ask his child how things were going at school, or if everything was OK at home and that any further questions would result in a termination of future access visits. The Plaintiff explained to Linda Cullain, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants that asking a child these questions was not emotional abuse, especially when the child brings up the subjects of school and home on his own. Linda Cullian began screaming hysterically at the Plaintiff and coincidently two GSPS officers happened to be around the corner and approached the Plaintiff and began to intimidated him. The Plaintiff told the two police officers that he will not follow Linda Cullain’s instructions and that she is the one who needs to be restrained. After a brief moment of silence, Linda Cullian conceded to the Plaintiff.

28. On December 30, 2004 Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin, Debbie Lacelle, Christie Croteau and the other Defendants acted with bad intention when Christie Croteau and Debbie Lacelle supervised a visit between the Plaintiff and his child. Christie Croteau did not file an affidavit but made the case notes. Debbie Lacelle and Jean Jacque Paquette`s affidavit does not contain Christie Croteau’s case notes or any details of the supervised visit. Debbie Lacelle, Christie Croteau and Jean Jacque Paquette acted with improper motives when they deliberately fabricated and excluded evidence in their affidavits and notes with the intent to further procure the false child protection proceedings against the Plaintiff and his child. The Defendants acted with malice and illegally practiced social work in the Province of Ontario. Neither Debbie Lacelle or Christie Croteau ever belonged of the Ontario College of Social Work. The Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a child was at risk or suffered abuse or that supervision was necessary pursuant to the Child and Family Service Act. The Defendants acted with bias and improper motive against the Plaintiff and for their own self-promotion.

57. On January 10, 2005 Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin, Jean O’Conner and the other Defendants acted with malice when they deliberately excluded evidence and reported biased information to General Practitioner Dr. Sheila Milne to obtain a mental health opinion regarding the mental health of the Plaintiff’s child. The Plaintiff denies ever questioning his child inappropriately as reported to Dr. Milne by Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin, Jean O’Conner and the other Defendants. Jean Jacque Paquette acted with malice when he deliberately prevented the Plaintiff from asking his child how things were going at school, or if everything was OK at home adding that any further questions would result in a termination of access. Jean Jacque Paquette for his own self promotion prevented the Plaintiff from asking his seven year old child who’s loaded gun he was handling. Jean Jacque Paquette was negligent and acted with malice when he deliberately failed to accurately take into account statements made the Plaintiff’s child. On January 6, 2005 Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants falsely reported that the Plaintiff’s child said “he would bring a gun to tune up the CAS”. However, the Society affidavits reported that the Plaintiff’s child actually said “he will bring a hockey stick to tune up the CAS if they don’t allow unsupervised visits with his Dad”. The Defendants acted with bias and improper motive against the Plaintiff and for their own self-promotion.
58. January 11th, 2005, Jean Jacque Paquette, Nora Dougan, Candice Poulin, and the other Defendants falsely reported to the court that the Plaintiff was attempting to use the CAS as a tool for his custody battle. The Plaintiff denies ever battling for custody or using the CAS as a custody tool. The Plaintiff’s efforts were directed at obtaining access, even a supervised access visit.

59. On January 18, 2005 Jean Jacque Paquette, Karen Fagen Candice Poulin and the other Defendants acted with bad intentions when Karen Fagen supervised a visit between the Plaintiff and his child and deliberately failed to protect and promote the Plaintiff’s child’s best interests. Karen Fagen reported that the Plaintiff’s child had said that he did not want to take Ritalin and doesn’t know why his mother put him on it. Karen Fagen and the other Defendants failed to protect the Plaintiff when they allowed MV to interrupt the Plaintiff’s access visits on three separate occasions. Karen Fagen and Candice Poulin illegally practiced social work in the Province of Ontario. Karen Fagen and Candice Poulin have never been members of the Ontario College of Social Work. The Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a child was at risk of abuse form the Plaintiff or suffered abuse or that supervision was necessary pursuant to the Child and Family Service Act.

60. On January 19, 2005 Candice Poulin deliberately provided false and biased information in her affidavit and slandered the Plaintiff and said that he was emotionally unstable. The Plaintiff is not emotionally unstable and did not repeatedly ask his child inappropriate questions or cause any emotional abuse.

61. On or about January 2005, the Plaintiff contacted Sudbury MPP Rick Bartolucci who told the Plaintiff to “go and protest in front of his office”. The Defendants conduct was a deliberate abusive exercise of public function intended for the promotion of Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Craig Moxam, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady and the other Defendants and to further harass the Plaintiff.

62. On January 20, 2005 Linda Cullain, Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants acted with improper motives and bad intention when they denied the Plaintiff and his child’s emotional responsiveness to access and subjected the Plaintiff’s child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation. The Plaintiff scheduled a meeting with Linda Cullian to discuss the fact that during the three supervised access visits, his child on three separate occasions told the CAS worker that he wanted unsupervised visits and that these facts are also documented in the CAS affidavits. The Plaintiff attended the offices of the Sudbury CAS to meet with Linda Cullian but instead was met by the Sudbury Police and placed under arrest for breach of probation for calling MV a crackhead on January 18, 2005 after she interrupted his one hour visit three times. The Defendants were biased, failed to conduct a prudent investigation, conspired against the Plaintiff and deliberately fabricated evidence and excluded witnesses before arresting, imprisoning, and prosecuting the Plaintiff. At the time of his arrest, the Plaintiff was not engaged in any unlawful activity and the Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that he had committed a criminal offence or was about to commit a criminal offence and that an arrest was necessary. The Plaintiff did not resist the arrest, but did assert that the police had no right to arrest or prosecute him. and then taken to the Sudbury Police station and held against his will and without consent. The Plaintiff was placed in a cell overnight and held in custody for bail the following morning. The matter proceeded to trial and Kendrick Abbott and the GSPS deliberately failed their duty to ensure the charges against the Plaintiff met the Ministry’s screening standard and that all available legal proof of the facts was presented impartially, fairly and objectively. Kendrick Abbott told Loius Solas (the Plaintiff’s lawyer), that he would drop all the charges if the Plaintiff left the province of Ontario lawyer The Plaintiff remained in custody under duress, financial hardship and to save his employment plead guilty to breach of probation and then released and returned to work to support his family.

63. Between February 8th-25th, 2005, Dr. Sheila Milne negligently prescribe Apo-clonidine to address the nightmares and difficulty sleeping that the Plaintiff’s child that was as a result of the actions taken by Jean Jacque Paquette and no access to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s child was under the care and supervision of Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and Melissa Verhagen and was having difficulty sleeping and nightmares because he wanted regular unsupervised access with the Plaintiff. The Defendants denied the Plaintiff and his child’s emotional responsiveness to the circumstances and subjected the Plaintiff and his child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation.

64. In April 2005, Patricia Meehan acted with malice and improper motives when she deliberately failed to acknowledge the conclusions and recommendations of the Social Work Report of the Children’s Lawyer dated 2002 with the intent to procure the malicious child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff.

65. On May 9, 2005 Dr. Sheila Milne met with MV and made notes regarding MV’s description of the incident on December 23, 2003. MV’s description of the incident as noted by Dr. Sheila Mile contradicts what she and her live boyfriend at the time told the GSPS Paul McGee, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, Craig Maki and the other Defendants and that led to the Plaintiff’s arrest. John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants with improper motives, malice and bad intention continued their malicious prosecution and child protection proceedings against the Plaintiff after becoming aware that statements made by MV were contradictory and untruthful.
66. On May 20, 2005 Judge Andre Guay had no reasonable grounds to refuse the Plaintiff’s request for an order that would force Jean Jacque Paquette and the CAS to video record the Plaintiff’s next supervised access visit. Jean Jacque Paquette with improper motives and bad intention informed Judge Guay that the Sudbury CAS office was equipped to video record supervised visits and that an order is not required. Judge Guay ordered a supervised visit between the Plaintiff and his child that took place on May 31, 2005. Judge Guay deliberately failed to make an order that required the CAS record the access visit. Jean Jacque Paquette, Donald Kinsley Candice Poulin and the other Defendants deliberately failed to record the supervised visit on May 31, 2005. The Defendant’s conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function intended to injure the Plaintiff and procure the false child protection proceedings.

67. On May 31, 2005 Jean Jacque Paquette, Donald Kinsley, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants acted with malice, with improper motives and bad intention when they deliberately lied the Plaintiff and told him that the supervised visit was being recorded.

68. On June 13, 2005 Jean Jacque Paquette and Candice Poulin filed an affidavit in support of cancelling all access visits between the Plaintiff and his child. Candice Poulin falsely reported that “any access between the Plaintiff and his child is more harmful than no access at all” and cancelled all future access visits. Candice Poulin, Donald Kinsley and the other Defendants illegally practiced social work in the Province of Ontario.” The Defendants have never been a members of the Ontario College of Social Work. The Defendants deliberately denied the Plaintiff and his child’s emotional responsiveness to access and subjected the Plaintiff’s child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation.

69. In July 2005 Jean Jacque Paquette and Judge Gauy wilfully obstructed and defeated the course of justice in a judicial proceeding when they deliberately dismissed the Plaintiff’s motion to cross examining CAS worker Donald Kinsley. Jean Jacque Paquette acted with malice and with an improper purpose when he opposed the Plaintiff’s motion to cross examine Donald Kinsley. Donald Kinsley acted with improper motives when he initiated the proceedings against the Plaintiff and was biased in his investigation and failed to consider relevant evidence or take into account statements from witnesses. Judge Guay and Jean Jacque Paquette procured the child protection proceedings against the Plaintiff and prevented the Plaintiff from cross examining Donald Kinsley.

70. On July 7th, 2005 the Plaintiff began a civil proceedings and filed a Statement of Claim for damages against CAS Jean Jacque Paquette, Donald Kingsley Candice Poulin and Dr. Sheila Milne. The Defendants were summoned by the Plaintiff to attend NorOnt Court Reporting Services at 175 Applegrove on October 14, 2005 to be cross examined by the Plaintiff. The Defendants deliberately failed to file a defense within the prescribed time and were noted in default. On Sept 2, 2005 Jean Jacque Paquette asked the court for more time to file a defense and to set aside the finding of default against CAS. On Sept 9/05 Judge Patricia Hennessey set aside the finding of default against the CAS and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. On October 14, 2005 Jean Jacque Paquette acted with malice when he accompanied Donald Kingsley Candice Poulin and Dr. Sheila Milne and attended 175 Applegrove St. and advised Donald Kingsley Candice Poulin and Dr. Sheila Milne not to participate in the cross-examination and procuring the child protection proceeding for his own self promotion.

71. On October 25, 2005 Jean Jacques Paquette, Candice Poulin, Jean O’Conner and the other Defendants continued to deny the Plaintiff even a supervised access visit. The Defendants acted with malice when they Plaintiff’s refused to accept the Plaintiff’s employment related mandatory assessments from qualified assessors and insisted that they choose the assessor for the Plaintiff’s assessment. Jean Jacque Paquette,Candice Poulin, Jean O’Conner and the other Defendants procured the child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff for their own self promotion.

72. On November 1, 2005 Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin, Laura Fox and the other Defendants acted with malice when at 2 p.m.Laura Fox arrived at the Plaintiff’s home to supervise an access visit between the Plaintiff and his child whom he’s only seen three times since the commencement of the child protection proceedings. Laura Fox kept the doors locked and windows rolled up preventing the Plaintiff’s child from greeting him. Laura Fox for improper purposes rolled down her own window and demanded that she enter the Plaintiff’s home. The Plaintiff’s child screamed out saying that he wanted the visit to occur outside because he wanted to play in the yard. The Plaintiff agreed with his child that they could visit in the yard. Laura Fox without reason and for her own self promotion sped away while the Plaintiff’s child was kicking and screaming “No wait! I wanna see my Dad”! Laura Fox acted with malice and bad intention when she deliberately and for improper purposes denied the Plaintiff and his child a supervised visit in their yard. The Defendants had no reasonable and probable cause for wanting to enter the Plaintiff’s home. The Defendants illegally practiced social work in the Province of Ontario. Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin, Laura Fox, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants acted with improper motives and bad intention when she deliberately denied the Plaintiff and his child’s emotional responsiveness to access, and subjected the Plaintiff and his child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting, and parental alienation.

73. On or about October 30th, 2005 Judge Renaud overlooked relevant evidence, reports or take into account affidavits from witnesses, and overlooked recommendations from the Office of Social work Report dated January 2002, and the Plaintiff’s mandatory employment assessment dated October 25th, 2005. Judge Renaud may have suffered cognitive impairment including impaired judgement and doing things that are not appropriate for the situation when he made a final order that required the Plaintiff to attend for an assessment with an assessor who’s qualifications are pre approved by Jean Jacque Paquette, Kendrick Abbot, Craig Maki and the other Defendants. Judge Renaud with reasonable cause failed to realize that Jean Jacque Paquette, MV, Candice Poulin, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants were against any access at all. Judge Renaud could not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a child was at risk or suffered abuse or that protection was necessary pursuant to the Child and Family Service Act when he made a twelve month no access order against the Plaintiff. Judge Renaud’s decision was not appealed by the Plaintiff because of the lack of credibility in the CAS courts and the financial costs of appealing.

74. On November 23, 2005 Patricia Meehan for own self promotion falsely reported to the courts that the Plaintiff’s child does not want to be improperly questioned by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims that his child does not to be questioned inappropriately by anyone, and that his child would naturally talk about his home or school own his own, and any question asked by the Plaintiff about his child’s school or home life was not emotional abuse especially when the child brings up the subjects of his home and his school on his own. The Plaintiff did not inappropriately question his child. Patricia Meehan for her own self promotion deliberately failed to report on the access visit that was deliberately sabotaged by Laura Fox on November 1, 2005 and the traumatic effects it had on the Plaintiff and his child. Patricia Meehan for her own self promotion failed to provide independent and impartial representations that were in the best interests, needs and wishes of the Plaintiff’s child. Patricia Meehan failed to properly preform her duty as “court appointed” children’s lawyer. Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette, Pierre Bradley, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott and the other Defendants deliberately failed to acknowledge the Social Work Report of the Children’s Lawyer 2002 with the intent to procured Jean Jacques Paquette and the other Defendant’s false child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff. Patricia Meehan also indicated that she was confused.

75. On December 6, 2005 Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants failed to protect and promote the Plaintiff’s child’s best interests including dental/medical needs, access, education, and general welfare. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan Candice Poulin, and the other Defendants deliberately provided Dr. Sheila Milne with biased and false information that subjected the Plaintiff and his child to psychological trauma, including anxiety and nightmares. Dr. Sheila Milne incorrectly diagnosed the Plaintiff’s child as having ADHD and to be of average intelligence when she prescribe Ritalin 20mg SR and PMS-methylphenidate 10mg SR also known as “kiddy cocaine” to address the behavior that was caused by the emotional abuse inflicted by Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants. In 2009, the Plaintif’s child was tested and found to be above average intelligence. Dr. Sheila Milne noted that she had repeated communications with Melissa Verhagen and they both formulated a plan for neglently medicating the Plaintiff’s child with Ritalin. Once the prescriptions reached 40mg, Dr. Sheila Milne’s noted that all communications with MV suddenly stops. Defendants deliberately created the environment and circumstance to intentionally misdiagnosed the Plaintiff’s child with the intent of obtaining a prescription for Ritalin. The Defendants denied the Plaintiff and his child’s emotional responsiveness to access and subjected the Plaintiff and his child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation.

76. On June 12, 2006 Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants acted with bad intention when she failed to report the negative effects Ritalin was having on the Plaintiff’s child and falsely accused the Plaintiff as using the society as a tool for his custody battle. The Plaintiff was not perusing custody of his child, he was asking the courts for a supervised access visit. Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette, and the other Defendants failed their responsibility to protect the Plaintiff’s child’s best interests when the Plaintiff’s child reported that 10 mg of Ritalin made his stomach hurt, made him feel dizzy, and made him feel like a zombie and that he didn’t want to take it. Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin, Dr.Sheila Milne and the other Defendant’s deliberately caused the Plaintiff’s child to be prescribed Ritalin at a titration rate that was faster than normally accepted and the dosage to be negligently increased to 40 mg which was the proximate cause of the accident suffered by the Plaintiff’s child on July 4, 2006 while in the care of Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants.

77. On June 21, 2006 Judge Fournier, acted for his own self-promotion when he said to the Plaintiff “welcome to the rest of your life” and made a final order that awarded MV and the Defendants full unilateral authority over any access between the Plaintiff and his child and required the Plaintiff to attend for an assessment who’s qualifications were pre approved by Jean Jacque Paquette, Kendrick Abbot, Craig Maki and the other Defendants. Judge Fournier and Jean Jacque Paquette failed to consider relevant evidence, reports or take into account affidavits from witnesses, dismissed recommendations from the Office of Social work Report dated January 2002, and failed to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s mandatory employment assessment dated October 25th, 2005 . Judge Fournier did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a child was at risk or suffered abuse or that protection was necessary pursuant to the Child and Family Service. Judge Fournier deliberately and for improper purposes failed to order drug screens and allowed the defendants to illegally practice social work in the Province of Ontario. Judge Fournier’s decision was not appealed by the Plaintiff because of the lack of credibility in the CAS courts and the financial costs of appealing.

78. On or about July 4, 2006 Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants had full unilateral authority over the Plaintiff’s child best interests including dental/medical needs, access, education, and general welfare. The Plaintiff was denied access and the Defendant’s left the Plaintiff’s child in the care of Dianne Fisher aka Verhagen etc, etc. While in the care of Dianne Fisher, the Plaintiff’s child suffered a physical injury and trauma. Dianne Fisher administered 40mg of Ritalin (or more) to the Plaintiff’s child who then had an adverse reaction or was completely incapacitated from the faster than normal titration rate of Ritalin that was negligently prescribed by Sheila Milne . (CAS documented that 10 mg makes the Plaintiff’s child feel dizzy, like a zombie and discomfort to his stomach). Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, MV and Dianne Fisher deliberately failed to inform the Plaintiff of his child’s accident. Dr. R.S. D’Aloisio fastened a splint and re-inserted the two teeth. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Police and the Crown deliberately failed to inform the Plaintiff of the physical injury suffered by his child and continued to deny him access and the expert orthodontic dental services his was able to provide. The Defendant’s conduct was an improper and abusive exercise of public function and deliberately procured child protection proceedings that subjected the Plaintiff and his child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety and physical injury.

79. On July 17, 2006, Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants acted with improper motives and bad intention when she deliberately failed to inform the Plaintiff of the accident suffered by his child on July 4, 2006. Patricia Meehan deliberately failed her responsibility to promote and protect the Plaintiff’s child’s best interests including dental/medical needs, access, and general welfare that resulted in the negligent prescription of Ritalin. The Defendant’s conduct was a deliberate, improper and abusive exercise of public function that subjected the Plaintiff and his child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation and physical injury.

80. On July 26, 2006 Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin Makic and the other Defendants acted with improper motive when she deliberately failed to inform the Plaintiff of the accident suffered by his child on July 4, 2006. Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin, Patricia Meehan, the Police and the Crown deliberately failed to inform the Plaintiff of the suspicious accident and without reachildable cause continued to deny access and expert orthodontic dental treatment and private dental insurance that the Plaintiff was able to provide. Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin, the Police, Crown and the other Defendants deliberately attempted to hide the accident form the Plaintiff for improper purposes. The Defendants conduct was deliberate, improper and unlawful exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion and subjected the Plaintiff and his child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation and physical injury.

81. On August 17 2006, the Plaintiff became aware of his child’s accident and informed Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants of the need to preform drug screens and that he has access to expert dental treatment, private dental insurance to cover any dental expense as a result of his child’s accident and that he would like his child to see a dentist who specializes in orthodontic treatment rather than Dr. R.S. D’Aloisio for further treatment of his child’s injury.

82. On August 22, 2006 Jean Jacque Paquette acted for his own self promotion when he advised the Plaintiff that he was “not comfortable with anyone else except the CA$ to supervise access between the Plaintiff and his child”. Jean Jacque Paquette acted with malice and improper motives when he without reasonable cause advised the Plaintiff’s that his partner is not qualified to supervise access visits either. Jean Jacque Paquette maliciously wrote that the Plaintiff’s father claimed did not want the responsibility of supervising visits either. In fact, the Plaintiff’s father said that supervision between the Plaintiff and his child was “not necessary”. Jean Jacque Paquette maliciously withheld access to prevent the Plaintiff’s child from divulging any details of the suspicious accident which was a direct result of the negligent prescription of Ritalin. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan , Candice Poulin and the other Defendants denied the Plaintiff’s child access to private dental care, expert orthodontic dental treatment, and private dental insurance for their own self promotion. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants denied the Plaintiff and his child’s emotional responsiveness to the circumstances and subjected the Plaintiff’s child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting, and parental alienation.

83. August 28, 2006 Jean Jacque Paquette, Jean O’Conner, Patricia Meehan Candice Poulin and the other Defendants acted with improper motives, and in contravention of the standard required by the Child and Family Services Act when they continued to deny the Plaintiff and his child any access, and access to expert orthodontic dental healthcare and private dental insurance. The Defendants conduct fell far below that of reasonably prudent officers. . The Defendants conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion.

84. On August 29, 2006, Jean Jacque Paquette, Jean O’Conner, Louse Beauvais and the other Defendants acted with malice and bad intention and in contravention of the standard required by the Child and Family Services when they continued to deny the Plaintiff and his child any access and access to expert orthodontic dental healthcare and private dental insurance. The Defendants for improper purposes failed to acknowledge a mandatory employment assessment dated October 25th, 2005 continued to deny the Plaintiff and his child even a supervised visit. Jean Jacque Paquette, Jean O’Conner, Louse Beauvais and the other Defendants without reason continually refused to accept the Plaintiff’s independent assessments or the qualifications of his assessor. The Defendants acted with malice when they suggested to the Plaintiff that Dr. Ross preform the assessment. Dr. Ross is married to Defendant Kendrick Abbott and was refused by the Plaintiff for that reason.

85. On or about September 2, 2006, the Plaintiff learned Dianne Fisher, first consulted MV who then consulted Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, and the other Defendants who all decided it was in their own interests not to inform the Plaintiff of the accident. Dianne Fisher brought the Plaintiff’s child to see an “on call” dentist Dr. R. S. D’Aloisio after an unacceptable amount of time had elapsed since the accident. The Plaintiff contacted Dr. R. S. D’Aloisio who informed him that his child calmly walked into his office with his and said there were no other facial injuries such as a fat lip, or scratches or cuts to his face or nose, or blood on his cloths and that the teeth were reinserted with a splint, and that he did not prescribe any painkillers to Dianne Fisher, MV or for the Plaintiff’s child. The Respondents and Dianne Fisher failed to seek immediate medical attention, and instead waited until the adverse effects of Ritalin wore off, cleaned up the blood, change of cloths, find a ride to the dentist, etc. The Plaintiff claims that the accident suffered by his child his is inconsistant with a fall and was the result of an adverse reaction that his child had to 40 mg of Ritalin that was negligently prescribed by Dr. Sheila Milne, as a result of the Defendants abusive conduct, and then administered by Dianne Fisher who was under the direction of MV and Jean Jacque Paquette and the CAS.

86. On September 10, 2006 Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Jean O’Conner, Louse Beauvais prevented the Plaintiff’s child from using the medical device dental device that was recommended by orthodontic expert Tarek El-Bialy who is the Associate Professor of Orthodontics and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Alberta. The Plaintiff purchased the dental device and gel then informed Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Jean O’Conner, Louse Beauvais and the other Defendants that he left the medical device and gel at the home of his child’s grandparents so that it can be picked up and used by the dentist chosen by the Defendants. The Defendants were negligent and acted with improper motives, malice and bad intention when they prevented the Plaintiff’s child from obtaining the medical device. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Jean O’Conner, Louse Beauvais and the other Defendants had full unilateral authority over the Plaintiff’s child best interests including dental/medical needs, access, education, and general welfare and their conduct fell below that of a reasonably prudent officer causing emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety to both the Plaintiff and his child, and permanent injury and to the Plaintiff’s child.

87. On October 19th, 2006 and December 27th, 2006, Jean Jacque Paquette, Nora Dougan and the other Defendants acted with malice, bad intentions and for their own self promotion when they investigated and dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint regarding the care and treatment that his child was receiving while under the supervision of Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Jean O’Conner, Louise Beauvais and the other Defendants. The Defendant’s dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint and said it was unfounded and continued to deny the Plaintiff’s child access to expert orthodontic treatment and private dental insurance that the Plaintiff was able to provide. Jean Jacque Paquette, Nora Dougan, Candice Poulin Makic, Patricia Meehan had full unilateral authority to make all decisions pertaining to all of the child’s needs including dental/medical needs, access, education, and general welfare. The Defendant’s failure to seek available dental treatment fell below the conduct of a reasonably prudent officers.

88. On January 29, 2007 the Defendnats appointed Suzanne Gilbert, Mr Oliver and 3 unknown members to the Child and Family Services Review Board to hear the Plaintiff’s complaint against the CAS regarding the care treatment of his child. The CFSRB failed to ensure that their primary duty is to serve the community, the source of their salaries; and that the their duty includes upholding public values, such as fairness, morals and transparant, accountable, and properly function child care system. and, are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff’s child and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter.

89. On April 30th, 2007 Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants acted with malice, improper motives and against the wishes of the Plaintiff’s child when she refused to give the Plaintiff’s child letters and a cell phone that he left in her office. Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants had no reasonable or probable cause for denying the Plaintiff’s child access, communication, or the opportunity to write or call the Plaintiff. The Defendants conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function that subjected the Plaintiff and his child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation.

90. On May 9, 2007 Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants acted against the wishes of the Plaintiff’s child when she maliciously and for improper purposes informed the Plaintiff that she will not accept any letters, Birthday or Christmas cards, packages, gifts, etc. that the Plaintiff left for his child and that in the future “they will all be thrown out”. Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants without reasonable cause deliberately procured the child protection proceeding and continued to deny the Plaintiff and his child any access or communication. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants refused to make use of the Plaintiff’s private dental insurance to pay R. S. D’Aloisio’s fees and denied the Plaintiff’s child access to expert dental treatment, private health coverage including dental insurance. The Defendants conduct was a deliberate abusive exercise of public function intended for self promotion and to further harass the Plaintiff.

91. On July 24, 2007 Jean Jacque Paquette, CAS worker Ms. Bisaillon, and the other Defendants acted with malice and bad intention when they falsely reported to Shelly A. DePaolis of the Sudbury Credit Bureau that there was a court order that said “the Plaintiff is responsible to pay Dr. R. S. D’Aloisio’s fees” for unsuccessfully treating the Plaintiff’s child. Jean Jacque Paquette, CAS worker Ms Bisaillon and the other Defendants deliberately provided false information to Shelly A. DePaolis who persecuted the Plaintiff for eighteen months attempting to collect Dr. R. S. D’Aloisio’s fees who had reported the Plaintiff to the Sudbury Credit Bureau. As a result the Plaintiff filed a complaint against R. S. D’Aloisio and Shelly A. De Paolis with the Minister of Consumer Services. On November 30, 2009 Shelly A. De Paolis, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants in an email to the Minister of Consumer Services confirmed that R. S. D’Aloisio, Shelly A. Depaolis, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants have closed their claim against the Plaintiff and that there are no outstanding accounts against the Plaintiff listed with the Sudbury Credit Bureau or R.S. D’Aloisio.

92. Or October 10th, 2007 Judge Serre for her own self promotion deliberately failed to acknowledge relevant evidence, reports or take into account affidavits from witnesses, and overlooked recommendations from the Office of Social work Report dated January 2002 and the Plaintiff’s mandatory employment assessment dated October 25th, 2005. Judge Serre did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a child was at risk or suffered abuse or that protection was necessary pursuant to the Child and Family Service Act when she issued a twelve month no access order against the Plaintiff. Judge Serre’s decision was not appealed by the Plaintiff because of the lack of credibility in the CAS courts and the financial costs of appealing.

93. On January 14, 2008 Jean Jacque Paquette for his own self promotion expressed unfounded concern over the Plaintiff’s mental health. Jean Jacque Paquette falsely claimed that the Plaintiff caused emotional harm during access visits by repeatedly questioning his child about his home environment and MV’s personal life. The Plaintiff explained to Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants that asking a child questions about his school or home life was not emotional abuse especially when the child brings up the subjects of school and his home life on his own. Jean Jacque Paquette had full unilateral authority to make all decisions pertaining to all of the child’s best interests including access, dental/medical needs and was confusing the Plaintiff’s request to the court for drug screens with inappropriate question of his child.

94. On March 20th, 2008 Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Craig Maki and the other Defendants acted with malice and with improper purposes when he attached his name to the Plaintiff’s 2002 Superior court file. Jean Jacque Paquette accessed the Plaintiff’s Superior court file and attached a letter requesting that the court refuse the Plaintiff any leave when he attempts to obtain access to his child with the intent to justify his false child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims that Jean Jacque Paquette accessed and attached his name to the Plaintiff’s Superior court and altered it to procure and falsely justify the false child protection proceedings against the Plaintiff. Jean Jacque Paquette was not the lawyer on record for the Plaintiff’s Superior court file.

95. On September 19th, 2008 Jean Jacque Paquette, Jean O’Conner, Jody Marcotte, Louise Beauvais, Brenda Beauvais, Sylvie Kinsley, and the other Defendants conspired with both Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam and the other Defendants and John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott and Susan Bruce when they all provided information that was known to be false in the Society’s Affidavits and in their Application for Status Review dated September 22, 2008. The Defendants falsely accused the Plaintiff of discontinuing support payments. The Plaintiff’s support payments have never been in arrears. The Defendants falsely accused the Plaintiff of leaving messages at his childs school. The Plaintiff has never left messages at his child’s school. The Defendants falsely accused the Plaintiff of using his child as pawn in his custody battle. The Plaintiff never used his child as a pawn for a custody battle. The Plaintiff’s efforts were directed at obtaining a supervised access and not to obtain custody. The Defendants falsely accused the Plaintiff of seeking leave of Superior Court to vary his custody and access order. The Plaintiff in fact brought an application to have MV and CAS held in contempt of court for violating a Superior court access orders, for drug screens, and not to vary the custody order as claimed by the Defendants. Wayne Foster, Robin Tiplady, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam and the other Defendants falsely accused the father of sending inappropriate emails to his child. The Plaintiff claims that sending Christmas and Birthday cards is not inappropriate. Jean Jacque Paquette and the Defendant’s conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function intended to injure the Plaintiff and his child and procure the false child protection hearing against the Plaintiff and his child for improper purposes. The Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a child was at risk or suffered abuse or that supervision was necessary pursuant to the Child and Family Service Act. The Defendants deliberately provided false and biased information that was known by Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, and the other Defendants to be false, to further deny access and maliciously prosecute and harass the Plaintiff.

96. On November 10th, 2008 Collette Prevost acted with malice and bad intention when she refused to communicate with Rawle Elliott from the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth to discuss the Plaintiff’s concern that access to his child has not been provided for some time now by his former spouse with the support of the Sudbury Children’s Aid Society. Collette Prevost, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Pierre Bradley, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants for their own self promotion refused to meet the Plaintiff and the Provincial Advocate to discuss his concerns that extensive parental alienation has occurred as a result of the current state of affairs.

97. January 21, 2009 Brenda Petryna breached her duty to avoid conflicting interests that arose from her function as a member of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board. Brenda Petryna’s function on the CFSRB shared common interest with her employer, the other Defendant and their agents/servants and or private business for professional advancement and special interest.

Brenda Petryna was employed as legal Assistant with Lacroix Forest LLP in Sudbury Ontario and failed to ensure her duties as a member of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) consisting of Lorne Sossin and James Dault were preformed without any conflict of interest, objectively, and in a professional capacity.

98. Brenda Petryna was an employee and agent of the other Defendants by association of persons to the other Defendants and has an interest in the matter distinct from an interest that arose from her function as a CFSRB board member including but not limited to the duty of loyalty owed to her employer, and to do favours for their associates the other Defendants. Brenda Petryna, the HPARB, and the other Defendants conspired with the College of Physicians and Surgeons to eliminate widespread opposition to the prescription of psychotropic drugs to children by unqualified mental health professionals. Brenda Petryna and the HPARB board appointed a committee that was assisted by an”anonymous independent” opinion from an expertise in paediatric psychiatry that was obtained by the College of Physcician and Surgeons biassed investigator. The annonomous and biassed opinion vindicated Dr. Sheila Milne from any liability for negligently practicing mental health, misdiagnosing the Plaintiff’s child and causing injury to the Plaintiff’s child. The Plaintiff claims that Brenda Petryna’s failure to recuse herself as a HPARB member resulted the appointment of a committee who relied on the anonymous and biased opinion that was obtained by the biased investigator, that resulted in the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s legitimate complaint against Shelia Milne for misdiagnosing the Plaintiff’s child and negligently prescribing Ritalin at a titration rate that was quicker than normally accepted.
99. In 2009, the Plaintiff’s child was tested and found to be above average intelligence and not afflicted with ADHD.

100. On February 28, 2009 the Plaintiff requested the assistance of the Police SUI0001974 after he was threatened and harassed by MV when her landlord evicted her from her apartment. MV began to threatened and harass the Plaintiff for his refusal to reconcile with her unless she submitted to a drug screen and in March 2009 she moved to Durham Region.

101. On or about May 2009, Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants acted with malice and bad intention when they sent the Durham Police a malicious report that described the Plaintiff as emotionally unstable, unpredictable, etc. Cautions flags are based on an officers observations, including notes and legitimate occurrence reports relating to any legitimate police occurrence. The Plaintiff claims that Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam and the other Defendant’s occurrence reports are not legitimate.

102. Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, and the other Defendants for improper purposes began to harassed the Plaintiff’s friends, family and employment inquiring about the Plaintiff’s mental health. Wayne Foster without reasonable cause, threatened to detain the Plaintiff under the Canadian Mental Health Act unless he stopped sending his child birthday and Christmas cards. The Defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds for assigning the caution flags to the Plaintiff, harassing his friends, family and place of employment, or for threatening the Plaintiff to be arrested and detained under the Canadian Mental Health Act. The Defendants conduct was deliberate harassment and an unlawful exercise of public function for their own self promotion with the intent to injure the Plaintiff.

103. On August 18, 2009 MV, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants acted with malice and bad intention when they conspired with MV and informed the Durham Region Children’s Aid Society that the Plaintiff would soon be arrested as a result of a malicious report that was sent by the Defendants to the Durham Region Police on or about May 2009.

104. On Sept 29, 2009 Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants conspired with Durham Region Police PC Wood and PC Moores to falsely arrest and prosecute the Plaintiff as a result of more false allegations that were made by MV and the slanderous information that was sent by the Defendants to the Durham Police on or about May 2009. When Durham Police ran a background check on the Plaintiff, they were falsely alerted to the false caution flags “emotionally unstable” and “unpredictable”, etc. The Plaintiff claims that Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam and the other Defendant’s occurrence reports and caution flags are not legitimate. Robin Tiplady, Craig Maki, Wayne Foster, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, and Jean Jacque Paquette maliciously entered the caution flags on November 23, 2000, on January 14, 2008, and in May and on August 2009 with the intent to injure the Plaintiff, to continue the false child protection proceeding and malicious prosecution, and for their own self promotion.

105. On November 4, 2009 Jean Jacque Paquette, CAS worker Ms. Bisaillon and the other Defendants with improper motive and bad intentions when they provided information that was known to be false to the Durham CAS. The Defendants falsely reported that the Plaintiff was responsible for his child’s accident and dental fees and was ordered by the court to pay those fees. The Defendants refused to make use of the Plaintiff’s private dental insurance to pay R. S. D’Aloisio’s fees and denied the Plaintiff’s child access to expert dental treatment, private health coverage including dental insurance. The Defendants conduct was a deliberate abusive exercise of public function intended for self promotion and to further harass the Plaintiff and his child.

106. On November 23th, 2009 Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jean O’Conner, Jody Marcotte, Louise Beauvais, Brenda Beauvais, Sylvie Kinsley, and the other Defendants conspired with Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam and the other Defendants when they provided information that was known to be false on their Status Review Application and Affidavit dated November 25th, 2009. The Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a child was at risk or suffered abuse, that supervision was necessary pursuant to the Child and Family Service Act, or that the Plaintiff’s child was at risk of emotional harm when they transferred the false child protection proceeding to Durham Region.

107. On November 30, 2009 Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants acted with malice and bad intentions when they contacted the Plaintiff via telephone and informed him that the Durham Police issued a warrant for his arrest after receiving a complaint from MV. Wayne Foster told the Plaintiff that he would arrest him “on site” and that he should surrender himself to Sudbury Police and remain in custody until the Durham Police can come pick him up and drive him back to Durham Region to answer to the charges. Wayne Foster Robin Tiplady, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants conspired with MV and deliberately sent false information to the Durham Police in May 2009 to harass, falsely arrest and prosecute the Plaintiff. Wayne Foster and the Defendant’s conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function with the intent to harass and injure the Plaintiff.

108. On December 3, 2009 the Plaintiff to discreetly left Sudbury and drove to Durham Region where he surrendered to the Durham Police for fear of being falsely arrested by the GSPS and then further unjustly denied bail by Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants. Durham Crown Attorney Sandy Kahra released the Plaintiff on bail conditions that were written by Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants. The bail conditions impose by Jean Jacque Paquette and the Defendants were that the Plaintiff remain in the presence of his surety, remain in the District of Sudbury or north of Sudbury only, and not to reside in a residence with internet service and not to access the internet. Durham Crown Attorney Sandy Kahra told the Plaintiff that “he was under pressure” from the Defendants not to vary the Plaintiff’s bail conditions that negatively affected his employment and prevented him from travelling south of Sudbury. The Defendants were aware that the Plaintiff’s employment required travelling south of Sudbury and with malice, bad intention and with the intent to injure the Plaintiff directed their vendetta towards his employment.

109. On December 26, 2009 MV was reported stocking the Plaintiff and calling his cell phone and leaving him messages such as “How do you like playing these fucken games”. The incident was reported to Constable Const. Blancette who investigated and failed to lay charges. Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants did have reasonable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff was threatened and harassed and that an arrest was necessary pursuant to the Criminal Code.

110. On April 8, 2010 Durham Crown Attorney Sandy Kahra withdrew all the charges against the Plaintiff on the condition that the Plaintiff sign a peace bond to keep the peace. The Plaintiff, in order to avoid an expensive trial and further financial penalty from missed employment, signed the peace bond and returned to work to support his family.

111. On or about April 10, April 15, 2010 and November 30, 2010 Jean Jacque Paquette, Rejean Parise, Michelle Glover, Josh Negusanti and the other Defendants acted with improper motives and bad intentions when they refused to accept three independent assessors and their qualifications that were proposed by the Plaintiff. The Defendants conduct was a deliberate and abusive exercise of public function that subjected the Plaintiff and his child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation.

112. September 29th, 2010 Leonard Kim for improper purposes failed to prosecute MV after she was charged by GSPS Badge 8609 for threatening and criminal harassment against the Plaintiff. The matter went to trial and Leonard Kim, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Susan Stothart deliberately failed their duty to ensure the prosecution met the Ministry’s acceptable standard and that all available legal proof of the facts, witnesses and victim was presented impartially, fairly and objectively. Leonard Kim with malice and bad intention deliberately failed to prosecute or call the victim or police officer to testify at the mock trial. The Defendants were aware that their actions were biassed and were intended for their own self promotion with the intent to injure the Plaintiff.

113. Between January 4, 2011 January 11, 2011 Jean Jacque Paquette, Collette Prevost, Ashley Thompson, Jean O’Oconner, Darlene Wilson, Michelle Glover, Donald Kinsley, Candice Poulin, Karen Fagon, Christine Croteau, CAS worker Ms. Bisaillon and Josh Negusanti acted for their own self promotion when they continued to deny the Plaintiff even a supervised access visit even after being provided three independent psychological assessments. The Defendants all illegally practiced social work in the Province of Ontario. The Ontario College of Social Workers reported that the Defendants are not registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and that CAS Area Director Collette T. Prevost’s certificate of registration was suspended on November 15, 2002. Collette Prevost, Ashley Thompson, Jean O’Oconner, Darlene Wilson, Michelle Glover, Donald Kinsley, Candice Poulin, Karen Fagon, Christine Croteau, CAS worker Ms. Bisaillon and Josh Negusanti denied the Plaintiff and his child’s emotional responsiveness to the circumstances and subjected the Plaintiff and his child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation. The Defendant’s conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion.

114. On January 13, 2011 Jean Jacque Paquette, Rejean Parise, Patricia Meehan, Darlene Wilson, Michelle Glover, Josh Negusanti and the other Defendants acted with improper motive and procured the false child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff when they deliberately failed to respond to the Plaintiff’s letters that requested a supervised access visit with his child. The Defendant’s failure to arrange even a supervised access visit was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function that subjected the Plaintiff and his child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation.

115. On January 26, 2011 Jean Jacque Paquette, Rejean Parise, Patricia Meehan, Josh Negusanti, Michelle Glover and the other Defendants acted with malice, bad intentions and procured the malicious child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff when they falsely claimed to support MV’s custody application in Superior court. There has never been a custody application before the courts that was initiated by MV or the Plaintiff. The Defendants falsely claimed to support a fictional custody application for their own self promotion. Jean Jacque Paquette accessed the Plaintiff’s Superior court file on March 20th, 2008 to alter the public record and give credit to his false child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff.

116. On May 2 and June 3, 2011 Jean Jacque Paquette, Rejean Parise, Patricia Meehan, Michelle Glover, Josh Negusanti and the other Defendants acted with improper motive they failed to respond to the Plaintiff’s letter that requested a supervised access visit with his child. The Defendants failure to arrange even a supervised access visit was a deliberate and unlawful and abusive exercise of public function that subjected the Plaintiff and his child to emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation.

117. On June 8th, 2011 GSPS Chief Frank Elsner acted with malice and improper intentions when failed to respond to the Plaintiff’s request for information regarding who, why and when the caution flag “emotionally unstable” was assigned to the Plaintiff.

118. On or about July 2011 Judge Malcolm McLeod acted with malice and bad intention when he told the Plaintiff that he doesn’t understand his motion requesting access to his child and permitted the CAS to deny the Plaintiff any access.
119. On July 4rth, 2011 Jean Jacque Paquette, Rejean Parise, Patricia Meehan, Josh Negusanti, Michelle Glover, Jean O’Conner, Linda Cullain, and the other Defendants acted with malice and bad intentions and conspired against the Plaintiff when failed to reply to the Plaintiff’s letters dated May 2nd and June 3rd, 2011. The Plaintiff attempted to contact Josh Negusanti to arrange an access visit and for a reply to the letters that were sent to him by the Plaintiff. The Defendants deliberately failed to reply to any of the Plaintiff’s letters for their own self promotion and to procure the false child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff. Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Moxam, Craig Maki, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants used the Plaintiff’s two letters dated May 2nd and June 3rd, 2011 to falsely arrest, maliciously prosecute, and convict the Plaintiff for allegedly harassing Josh Negusanti and obtaining an order that the Plaintiff remove all references to Josh Negusanti from the website corruptioncentral.com. All references to Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Judges and other Defendants was permitted to remain on the website.

120. On or about July 7, 2011 Judge Malcolm McLeod acted with malice and bad intention when he told the Plaintiff that he “can make things difficult for him” when the Plaintiff attempted to regain access with his child.

121. On July 8th, 2011 Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Duncan Epps and the other Defendants acted with malic when they created a false occurrence report against the Plaintiff dated July 8th, 2011 and changed the date on the police notes to July 4, 2011. MV informed the Defendants of a letter written by the Plaintiff’s child that was also dated July 8th, 2011 and addressed to the court requesting unsupervised access with the Plaintiff.

122. On July 9, 2011 Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Duncan Epps and the other Defendants acted with improper purposes when they telephoned the Plaintiff and informed him that he was under arrest for allegedly harassing CAS worker Josh Negusanti on July 4rth, 2011. The Plaintiff claims he did not harass Josh Negusanti on July 4, 2011.

123. On July 10th, the Plaintiff is told by his child that MV was on the phone yelling at the Police asking them why the Plaintiff wasn’t arrested yet?

124. On July 12, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., Duncan Epps, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Todd Bignocollo, Craig Moxam, Wayne Foster and the other Defendants provided Constable M. Robinson with a fraudulent Crown that contained Craig Maki’s illegitimate occurrence report containing malicious caution flags that were a result of MV discovering the Plaintiff’s child’s letter dated July 8th, 2011.. Thirty minutes later, at 10:00 a.m. M. Robinson for improper motives and bad intentions maliciously arrested the Plaintiff for criminal harassment against Josh Negusanti. Robinson arrested the Plaintiff as he entered the courtroom to show Judge McLeod and Judge Buttazonni the letter that his child had written for the court dated July 8, 2011 that requested unsupervised access visits with the Plaintiff. At the time of his arrest, the Plaintiff was not engaged in any unlawful activity and the Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that he had committed a criminal offence or was about to commit a criminal offence. The Plaintiff was then taken to the Sudbury Police station and held against his will and without consent. The Plaintiff was placed in a cell for approximately 4 hours and then released at 1400 hrs by Officer in Charge Robin Tiplady on a promise to appear notice. John Luczak, Jean Jacque Paquette, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants maliciously prosecuted the Plaintiff and acted for their own self promotion with the intent to injure the Plaintiff and procure the false child protection proceeding and malicious criminal prosecution of the Plaintiff. The matter proceeded to trial on October 16th, 17th, and 18th 2011 and;

a) Josh Negusanti testified that he was not fearful of the Plaintif and Susan Bruce did not provided any evidence that the Plaintiff was responsible for www. corruptioncentral.com.

b) Constable Epps testified that he made his notes from information found in the Police computer data banks and that the information included the caution flags “emotionally unstable, extremely violent, and unpredictable”.

c) Constable Epps testified that he had no knowledge of when, who, or why the caution flags became associated with the Plaintiff’s name.

d)Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Duncan Epps and the other Defendants created a false occurrence report against the Plaintiff dated July 8th, 2011 and changed the date on the police notes to July 4, 2011.

e) Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Duncan Epps deliberately failed their duty to ensure the charges against the Plaintiff met the Ministry’s screening standard and the standard required by the Police Handbook on Criminal Harassment. John Luczak, Susan Bruce, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette failed their duty to ensure that all available legal proof of the facts was presented impartially, fairly and objectively in contravention of the Crown Attorney Policy Manual.

f) On October 18, 2011 Judge Glaude found the Plaintiff Judge Norman Gluade in contravention of the standard required by the Criminal Code convicted the Plaintiff of criminally harassing CAS worker Josh Negusanti and ordered a presentence report for December 15, 2011.

g) the Plaintiff did not bring an application to record the sentencing hearing.

h) the the Pliiantiff did not bring a recorder to the sentecing on December 15, 2011 becuase he was expecting to be sentenced to jail,

i) the Plaintiff did not ask the court for permission to record the sentencing hearing December 15, 2011 because the Plaintif did not bring the recorder or any other personal belongings becuase he was excpecting to go to jail.

j) The Plaintiff recorded the entire trial held before Judge Glaude. Susan Bruce and Judge Glaude forced the Plaintiff to turn off the recorder on October 18, 2011 right before Susan Bruce made her closing arguement and not during the sentencing hearing December 15, 2011 as depicted in the fruadulent transcript.

k) The Plaintiff agreed with Judge Glaude that the trial is over and that the matter on December 15, 2011 is one for sentencing, thereforedid not bring the recorder or any other personal belongings since he was excpecting to go to jail. Susan Stothart is following by example and left New Brunswick for Ontario where there are no Whistle Blower laws to protect the public for exposing corruption in the government.

l) On December 15, 2011 Judge Glaude sentenced the Plaintiff to ten days imprisonment, ordered him to provide a DNA sample to the Defendants, placed him on probation, and ordered that the he remove all reference to Josh Negusnati from the website www. corruptioncentral.com.

m) Judge Gluade’s decision was not appealed by the Paintiff becuase of the lack of credibility in the CAS courts and the financial costs of appealing.

125. On July 13/11 Justice of the Peace (JOP) Ruby Beck and North Bay Crown Attorney John Holland conspired with Sudbury’s Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Susan Bruce,Todd Bignocollo, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady and the other Defendants to fraudulently obtain a search warrant and illegally search and seize the Plaintiff’s computers and personal information.

a) Ruby Beck is neither a provincial court judge, or a judge of a superior court, or a judge as defined in s.552 of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) and maliciously issued a search warrant to GSPS Todd Bignocollo to illegally search and seize the Plaintiff’s computers and personal information.

b) The Defendants acted with malice and bad intentions when they unlawfully entered into an agreement under the Provincial Offences Act (POA). Section 162. (1) of the POA states that ” The Attorney General and a municipality may enter into an agreement with respect to a specified area, Ruby Beck for improper purposes illegally issued a search warrant to the Defendants to begin illegal prosecution of the Plaintiff under Part III of the POA for allegedly contravening s.136(1) of the Courts of Justice Act which is “a prohibition against photography, etc., at court hearing” that involved Judge Malcolm McLeod and Judge Buttazonni in Sudbury Ontario on or about June 27, 2011.

c) Section 158.2 (1)s.s.(2)(b) of the POA clearly says that “a person has, under a warrant issued under this or any other Act or otherwise in the performance of his or her duties under an Act, seized any thing, (I) upon or in respect of which an offence has been or is suspected to have been committed, and b) no procedure for dealing with the thing is otherwise provided by law”.

d) The Criminal Code provides authorization for seizing, copying and searching computers, data, and personal information. Section 487.01 (1) of the CCC states that “A provincial court judge, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 may issue a warrant in writing authorizing a peace officer to, subject to this section, use any device or investigative technique or procedure or do any thing described in the warrant that would, if not authorized, constitute an unreasonable search or seizure in respect of a person or a person’s property”.

e) The Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) provides for “reasonable and lawful access” to personal information found in computers subject to privacy legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Defendants with the intent to harass the Plaintiff deliberately contravened s.487 (2.2) of the Criminal Code for seizing and accessing the Plaintiff’s personal data and information.

f) The Defendants search and seizure constitutes as illegal and unreasonable. The Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his personal computer as did the individuals who previously owned the Plaintiff’s pre owned computers. Todd Bignolcollo and the other Defendants unlawfully analysed the Plaintiff’s information and made copies of the Plaintiff’s personal data contrary to the CCC. The Plaintiff claims that Todd Bignocollo should have sought assistance from an independent computer forensic expert in searching computers in order to assist him to draft reasonable limitations on the search of the accused’s computer and personal information.

g) John Holland, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Leonard Kim, Jean Jacque Paquette, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady,Todd Bignocollo and the other Defendants acted with improper motive when they deliberately failed to deal with the Plaintiff’s computers and his personal information as otherwise provided by law. Todd Bignocollo’s investigation and analysis was biased, unlawful and his illegal forensic analysis of the Plaintiff’s computer and personal information was a deliberate violation of the Plaintiffs right to life, liberty and security of the person.

126. October 16th, 17th, and 18th 2011 John Luczak, Jean Jacque Paquette, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants maliciously prosecuted the Plaintiff and acted for their own self promotion with the intent to injure the Plaintiff and procure the false child protection proceeding and malicious criminal prosecution of the Plaintiff. The matter proceeded to trial on and;

a) Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Duncan Epps and the other Defendants created a false occurrence report against the Plaintiff dated July 8th, 2011 and changed the date on the police notes to July 4, 2011

b) Constable Epps testified that he made his notes from information found in the Police computer data banks and that the information included the caution flags “emotionally unstable, extremely violent, and unpredictable”.

c) Constable Epps testified that he had no knowledge of when, who, or why the caution flags became associated with the Plaintiff’s name.

d) Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Duncan Epps deliberately failed their duty to ensure the charges against the Plaintiff met the Ministry’s screening standard and the standard required by the Police Handbook on Criminal Harassment. John Luczak, Susan Bruce, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette failed their duty to ensure that all available legal proof of the facts was presented impartially, fairly and objectively in contravention of the Crown Attorney Policy Manual.

e) On October 18, 2011 Judge Glaude found the Plaintiff Judge Norman Gluade in contravention of the standard required by the Criminal Code convicted the Plaintiff of criminally harassing CAS worker Josh Negusanti and ordered a presentence report for December 15, 2011.

f) the Plaintiff did not bring an application to record the sentencing hearing.

g) the the Pliiantiff did not bring a recorder to the sentecing on December 15, 2011 becuase he was expecting to be sentenced to jail,

h) the Plaintiff did not ask the court for permission to record the sentencing hearing December 15, 2011 because the Plaintif did not bring the recorder or any other personal belongings becuase he was excpecting to go to jail.

i) The Plaintiff recorded the entire trial held before Judge Glaude. Susan Bruce and Judge Glaude forced the Plaintiff to turn off the recorder on October 18, 2011 right before Susan Bruce made her closing arguement and not during the sentencing hearing December 15, 2011 as depicted in the fruadulent transcript.

j) The Plaintiff agreed with Judge Glaude that the trial is over and that the matter on December 15, 2011 is one for sentencing, thereforedid not bring the recorder or any other personal belongings since he was excpecting to go to jail. Susan Stothart is following by example and left New Brunswick for Ontario where there are no Whistle Blower laws to protect the public for exposing corruption in the government.

k) On December 15, 2011 Judge Glaude sentenced the Plaintiff to ten days imprisonment, ordered him to provide a DNA sample to the Defendants, placed him on probation, and ordered that the he remove all reference to Josh Negusnati from the website www. corruptioncentral.com.

l) Judge Gluade’s decision was not appealed by the Paintiff becuase of the lack of credibility in the CAS courts and the financial costs of appealing.

m) deliberately intended to subvert or abuse the office of the Attorney General and the process of criminal justice such that he or she exceeded the boundaries of the office of the Attorney General by disregarding the Crown Attorney Policiy maunual.

127. On October 18, 2011 Judge Norman Glaude made an order that the Plaintiff attend for a pre-sentence report before sentencing.

128. On October 21st, 2011, Todd Bignocollo, Robin Tiplay, Craig Maki, Detective Ramsey and the other Defendants acted with malice when they deliberately failed to return the Plaintiff’s computers to him on the date specified on the illegal search warrant. JOP M. Morreau made an order allowing the Police to retain his computers and personal information for an additional thirty days in addition to the sixty days that JOP Ruby Beck allowed, reuiring them to return the computers on October 19, 2011. Todd Bignocollo, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Jean Jaque Paquette, John Luczak, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants for their own self promotion returned the Plaintiff’s computers to him on October 21, 2011, two days after the date specified in the illegal search warrant and one day after the criminal harassment trial that was held on October 16th, 17th, and 18th 2011 with the intent to infringe his right to make full answer and defence. The Plaintiff’s computers contained documents and evidence required to make full answer and defense including letters the Plaintiff wrote to Josh Negusanti, Jean Jacque Paquette, Rejean Parise, Malcolm McLeod, on May 2, and June 3, 2011. The Defendants conduct was a malicious, deliberate, improper and unlawful exercise of public function and infringed the Plaintiff’s right to make full answer and defense.

129. On December 13, 2011 JOP Louise LaFleur issued Craig Maki a Summons under Part III of the POA that he served upon the Plaintiff for allegedly contravening s.136(1) of the Courts of Justice Act on or about June 27, 2011 that involved Jean Jacque Paquette, Judge Malcolm McLeod and Judge Buttazonni in Sudbury Ontario. Craig Maki remarked to the Plaintiff that the law can be enforced in two different ways.

130. On December 15, 2011 the Plaintiff attended to be sentenced by Judge Norman Glaude for criminal harassment against Josh Negusanti. The Plaintiff was sentenced to 10 days in jail and was immediately arrested to begin serving his sentence. Susan Stothart, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants deliberately altered Judge Norman Glaude’s transcripts dated December 15, 2011 that were certified by court reporter Helene Brydges. The Palintiff recorded the entire proceedings before Judge Glaude and,

a) the Plaintiff did not bring an application to record the sentencing hearing.

b) the the Pliiantiff did not bring a recorder to the sentecing on December 15, 2011 becuase he was expecting to be sentenced to jail,

c) the Plaintiff did not ask the court for permission to record the sentencing hearing December 15, 2011 because the Plaintif did not bring the recorder or any other personal belongings becuase he was excpecting to go to jail.

d) The Plaintiff recorded the entire trial held before Judge Glaude. Susan Bruce and Judge Glaude forced the Plaintiff to turn off the recorder on October 18, 2011 right before Susan Bruce made her closing arguement and not during the sentencing hearing December 15, 2011 as depicted in the fruadulent transcript.

e) The Plaintiff agreed with Judge Glaude that the trial is over and that the matter on December 15, 2011 is one for sentencing, thereforedid not bring the recorder or any other personal belongings since he was excpecting to go to jail. Susan Stothart is following by example and left New Brunswick for Ontario where there are no Whistle Blower laws to protect the public for exposing corruption in the government.

131. On or about January 30th, 2012 M. Raso or someone claiming to M. Raso contacted the Plaintiff on Facebook and informed him that she puts financial pressure on her enemies, that the Defendants deliberately procured he false child protection proceedings and criminal prosecutions for their own self protection and promotion and that MV had obtain anti depressants in addition to Ritalin.

132. On May 2/2012, Greg Bergeron Community Liaison Officer for the 2912 Sudbury Irish RCAC located at 333 Riverside Drive Sudbury, Ontario acted with malice and falsely accused the Plaintiff of causing a disturbance and forcing him to leave the property. The 2912 Sudbury Irish RCAC is sponsored and staffed by volunteers from the Children’s Aid Society, the Sudbury Police Association, and Sudbury MPP Rick Bartoclucci and the other Defendants. The Plaintiff was invited to the armory by his child to watch them practice and denies causing any disturbance. Greg Bergeron became combative and told the Plaintiff that dogs were not allowed on the property and asked the Plaintiff to leave. The Plaintiff politely told Greg Bergeron that he has attended on two other occasions with his dog to watch them practice and that other parents brought their dogs in the building with them to watch their kids practice, and when they picked up their kids from practice. and that his child is expecting to meet him during their break which was in a few minutes. Greg Bergeron told the Plaintiff that he would call the Police and have him arrested if he didn’t leave immediately. The Plaintiff left the property voluntarily and waited across the street for his child to finish practicing in order to visit which they had planned earlier. While waiting across the street, MV attended the armory and attempted to enter the armory four times before finding the correct door that led to the basement gymnasium where the practices are held. Shortly after she arrived, other Police Association members arrived with their dogs and entered the armory and had no difficulty finding the correct door to enter. The Defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds for asking the Plaintiff to leave the armory except to the policy of harassment against the Plaintiff by the other Defendants. The Defendants conduct was a deliberate and baseless exercise of public function intended to harass the Plaintiff on behalf of the other Defendants including but not limited to John Luczak, Jean Jacque Pauqette, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, Rick Bartolucci and the other Defendants, that subjected the Plaintiff and his child to harrassment, discrimination, emotional abuse, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation.

133. On May 5, 2012 Constable Eldeama acted with malice when he contacted the Plaintiff a gave him a “Notice of No Trespass” that was allegedly signed by Aline Groulx-Grant on behalf of Greg Bergeron and the other Defendants. The malicious Notice of Trespass prevented the Plaintiff from attending any “function, premises or event hosted, run or otherwise participated by any officer, staff, without first giving notice to and receiving permission from Aline Groulx-Grant”.

a) Between May 5-and June 6, 2012 the Plaintiff provided notice to the Defendants via email that he was planning to attend functions on several occasions. Notice of Trespass.

b) The Defendants informed the Plaintiff via email that “all parents must fill out a form” before being granted permission to attend 133 Riverside to watch their children drill practice”. The Defendants deliberately failed to send the Plaintiff the form.

c) failed to notify the Plaintiff where and when he can pickup and fill out the form with the intent to prevent him from attending the armory to watch his child.

134. On or about May 8th, 2012 The Office of the Independent Police Review Director conspired with the Minister of the Attorney General and refused to release to the Plaintiff any information that the Police provided in defense to the Plaintiff’s complaint against them. The OIPRD told the Plaintiff that Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FIPP) requests for the Office of the Independent Police Review Director must be made through the Ministry of the Attorney General’s FIPP’s Office.

135. Rick Bartolucci MPP for Sudbury Ontario the other Defefendnats and or their agents/servents deliberately appointed Gerry McNeilly, Susan Dunn-Lundy, Kim McDonalkd and Bernie Muiller to the Ontario Indpendant Police Review Director’s office.to impliment and eliminate widespread opposition to those policies and;

136. On June 14, 2012 Susan Stothart, John Luczak, Jean Jacque Paquette, Leonard Kim, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants acted with malice when they obtained a court order from Judge Martin Lambert that denied the Plaintiff access to his computers and personal information that were illegally seized by Todd Bignonollo and the other Defendnats on July13th, 2011, and that were required by the Plaintiff to make full answer and defense regarding the summons and charge laid by Loiuse LaFleur and Craig Maki on December 13, 2011 for contrevening s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act. The Plaintiff refused to attend the Police or Crown offices to access his personal information and computers as was proposed by the Crown and ordered by the court.

137. On June 28, 2012 Leonard Kim and Judge Malcolm McLeod presided over the one day mock pre-trial regarding the Plaintiff’s violation of s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act. Leonard Kim, Malcolm McLeod and the other Defendants falsely reported to the tax payer that the pretrial was two days in length for their own self promotion.

138. On October 3rd, 4rth, and 5th, 2012 Judge Martin Lambert presided over the first three days of the Crown’s case against the Plaintiff for contravening s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application and summons to cross examine Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Wayne Foster and Robin Tiplady as a result of timing issues.

139. On or about January 2013 Jeff Kuhn, Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, and the other Defendants acted with malice and improper motives when they deliberately sent false and slanderous information to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPCO) in response to a Freedom of Information request by the Plaintiff that inquired “who, why and when” the Defendants were assigning the caution flags “emotionally unstable, etc…” to the Plaintiff. Cautions flags are based on an officers observations, including notes and legitimate police occurrence reports relating to any legitimate police occurrence. The Plaintiff claims that Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Duncan Epps and the other Defendant’s occurrence reports, investigations and crown briefs are not legitimate. The Plaintiff claims that John Luczak, Jean Paquette, Pierre Bradley, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Susan Stothart and the other Defendants prosecutions are not legitimate.

a) Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Pierre Bradley, and the other Defendants in response to the Plaintiff’s request for information, submitted to the IPCO that they obtained “various opinions from several mental health professionals” regarding the Plaintiff’s mental health. The Defendant’s deliberately withheld their submissions from the Plaintiff including the mental health professionals that allegedly provided their opinion regarding the Plaintiff’s mental health.

b) The Plaintiff claims that Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Pierre Bradley, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Robin Tiplady and the other Defendants have a long personal history of creating illegitimate occurrence reports, falsely arresting, and maliciously prosecuting the Plaintiff on allegations of assault, criminal harassment, breach of probation and child protection reports that are known by the Defendants to be false.

c) The Defendants for their own self promotion falsely submitted to the IPCO that it was a result of the Plaintiff’s matrimonial proceedings that he has acquired “a long history of harassing, obsessive, and controlling behaviors” and deliberately failed to make any submissions to the IPCO regarding the Social Work Report of the Children’s Lawyer dated 2002, mandatory employment assessments dated October 25th, 2005 and an independent assessment dated November 30, 2010; all of which reported that the Plaintiff was emotionally stable and that there was no history of emotional instability, harassing, obsessive behaviors, or that he was a risk of causing emotional abuse to his child as alleged by the Defendants. The Plaintiff provided the independent assessments to the Defendants but not to the IPCO. The Defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds for assigning the caution flags to the Plaintiff.

d) The Defendants deliberately failed their duty to ensure that all available legal proof of the facts was presented impartially, fairly and objectively to the IPCO. The Defendants were aware that their actions were bias and were intended to further injure the Plaintiff.

140. On Feb 11,12 and 13, 2013 Judge Martin Lambert continued presiding over the Crown’s persecution of the Plaintiff for contravening s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act which is not a criminal offense but a regulatory offence with strict liability rather than criminal liability used to by government to including but not limited to enforce social behaviour, etc. Lambert dismissed the Plaintiff’s application to exclude Todd Bignocollo’s expert witness testimony as bias, one sided and non-expert. Jack Sivazlian also provided bias information regarding the assault committed by Jean Jacque Paquette against the Plaintiff in 2011. The trial continued on April 30/13, and concluded on May 1/13 and further remanded to May 15/13.  The Plaintiff made it very clear to Judge Martin Lambert that no charter violations were being claimed during the trial.

141. On May 15/13 the matter was remanded to August 10/13.

142. On or about June, 2013 Jack Sivazlian and the other Defendants did have reasonable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff was harassed by MV and that an arrest was necessary pursuant to the Criminal Code. The Defendants failure to arrest and prosecute MV was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function with the intent to injure the Plaintiff and promote members of the Sudbury Police Association. The failure of Robin Tiplady, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Leonard Kim and the other Defendants to arrest and prosecute and MV was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function with the intent to discriminate against the Plaintiff that resulted in a deliberate infringement of his Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

143. On August 10/13 the matter was remanded to September 11/13.

144. August 29/13, Judge Lambert releases his decision and reasons for finding the Plaintiff guilty of breach of probation of Judge Glaude’s probation order abd contravening s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act. Judge Lambert summarized his reasons as saying that he believes John Luczak, Jean Jacque Paquette, Kendrick Abbott, Patricia Meehan, Judge Normand Glaude and Malocm McLeod , Susan Bruce, Craig Maki, Robin Tibplady, Todd Bignocillo, Helene Brydges and the other Defendants and their fraudulent transcript dated December 15, 2011; and for the Defendnats self promotions satted that he didn’t see any charter violations, after the Plaintiff told him several times that he would not be arguing a charter violation during the trial.

145. On September 1, 2013 the Plaintiff’s child while in the care and control of MV and S. Raso directed the child to disagree with the Plaintiff when he refused to contribute funds for his child’s trip to New York with MV and S. Raso.

146. On September 11/13 Judge Lambert asked the Plaintiff if there is anything he would like to say before passing sentence. The Plaintiff suggested pre-sentence report in efforts of avoiding being sentenced to jail for contravening a strict liability regulatory offense, the liability to which is better suited to be decided by a jury rather than a court official. The matter was remanded to October 10/13 during which time the Plaintiff located the pre-sentence report that was requested by Judge Glaude on October 18, 2011.

a) Since regulatory offences are directed primarily not to conduct itself but to the consequences of conduct, conviction of a regulatory offence may be thought to import a significantly lesser degree of culpability than a conviction of a true crime. The concept of fault in regulatory offences is based upon a reasonable care standard and, as such, does not imply moral blameworthiness in the same manner as criminal fault. Conviction for breach of a regulatory offence suggests nothing more than that the defendant has failed to meet a prescribed standard of care.”  Strict Liability offences : the prosecution need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the prohibited act – much like absolute liability offences. However, in these types of offences, the onus then shifts to the accused to establish on a balance of probabilities that he has a defence of due diligence. Supreme Court of Canada Justice Dickson’s commentsin the Sault Ste. Marie are instructive: “Strict Liability Offences in which there is no necessity for the prosecution to prove the existence of mens rea [a mental element]; the doing of the prohibited act prima facie imports the offence, leaving it open for the accused to avoid liability by proving that he took all reasonable care. This involves consideration of what a reasonable man would have done in the circumstances. The defence will be available if the accused reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would render the act or omission innocent, or if he took all reasonable steps to avoid the particular event . These offences may properly be called offences of strict liability.” (emphasis added)

??

BASIS FOR CLAIM AGAINST THE GREATER SUDBURY POLICE SERVICE, THE SUDBURY POLICE SERVICES BOARD AND SUDBURY POLICE ASSOCIATION M. PAQUETTE, CRAIG MAKI, ROBIN TIPLAY, M. JEFFERY, DAVID BECK, CRAIG MOXAM, TODD BIGNOCOLLO, DAN ZULIANNI, JEFF KUHN, SUSAN LEYS, TIM BURTT, J. ROBERSTON, L. MCLOSKY, T. MARASSATO, P. SMYTH, ELAINA GROVES, SANDRA DICAIRE, PAUL MCGEE, MEAGAN O’MALLEY, JACK SIVAZLIAN, DUNCAN EPP, M. ROBINSON, GREG BERGERON, FRANK ELSNER, Const. ELDEAMA

 

147. The Plaintiff asserts that Special Constable M. Paquette, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Robin Tiplady, M. Jeffery, Greater Sudbury Police Service, Sudbury Police Association and the other Defendnats and or their agents/servents had ultimate control over government policies that were exercised during the administration of their employment and authority and failed to uphold the public’s standard of morals and deferred his values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servants.

148. The Defendnats deliberately intended to subvert or abuse the office of the Attorney General, law enforcement, and the process of criminal justice such that he or she The Defendants deliberately failed their duty to ensure the charges against the Plaintiff met the Ministry’s screening standard and that all available legal proof of the facts was presented impartially, fairly, and objectively; exceeding the boundaries of the Law enforcem for their own self promotion.

149. On July 11,1997 the Plaintiff reported to the Police that he was assaulted by MV. Constable Ealdama Badge 7636 documented the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff deliberately failed to arrest MV.

150. On July 21, 1997 M. Jeffery Badge 7690 and Robin Tiplady Badge 6221 for improper purposes arrested, detained, imprisoned and prosecuted the Plaintiff without a warrant or legal authority.

151. On April 7, 1998 MV T. Marassato Badge 7684 and P. Smyth Badge 5478 and the other Defendants without investigation and for improper purposes arrested, detained, imprisoned and prosecuted the Plaintiff without a warrant or legal authority.
152. On June 29 1999, J. Roberstson Badge 8101, L. McClosky, Special Constable M. Paquette, John Luczack, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants conspired with MV to injure the Plaintiff and for their own self promotion. J. Roberstson Badge 8101 and the other Defendnats did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe the allegations that were made against the Plaintiff, arrest or detain him and acted with malice when MV asked them for advice on how she should “take care of her situation” becoming an “extended” member of the Sudbury Police Association.

153. On December 23rd, 1999 Sandra Dicaire Badge 7685 and Special Constable M. Paquette Badge 2752 and the other Defendants acted with malice and did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe the allegations of assault, uttering threats and assualt causing bodily harm that were made against the Plaintiff; or to arrest and detain him. On November 23, 2000, the Plaintiff was found not guilty of assault, uttering threats, assualt causing bodily harm, and breach of probation as a result of charges that were laid by M. Paquette Badge # 2752 and Sandra Dicaire Badge 7685.

154. Also on November 23, 2000 Meagan O’Malley, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Kendrick Abbott Susan Bruce and the other Defendnats acted with malice and for their own self promotion when Megan O’Omalley for improper purposes entered the Plaintiff’s vehicle looking for sex. The Defendant did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff would satisfy her request for payment after she performed a sexual act on the Plaintiff and entrapped the Plaintiff. Meagan O’Malley entered the Plaintiff’s vehicle without invitation. She was univited and delibertely entrapped the Plaintiff as a result of being found not guilty of assault, death uttering threats, assualt causing bodily harm, and breach of probation; that were a result of malicious charges that were laid on December 23/99 by Special Constable M. Paquette and Sandra Dicaire. The Defendant did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff would satisfy her request for payment after she performed a sexual act on the Plaintiff and entrapped the Plaintiff.

a) Craig Moxam, Craig Maki, Meagan O’Malley and the other Defendnats did not have reasonable and probable grounds to demand that the Plaintiff provide a breath sample or that he had committed any offence after he was found not guilty of assault, uttering threats, assualt causing bodily harm, and breach of probation and their conduct to further harrass and promote interests of MV and Police association.

b) Craig Moxam, Craig Maki, Meagan O’Malley, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendnats acted with malice and improper purposes that the Police video depicting the Plaintiff’s alleged emotional unstablity had been misplaced and unavailbe for the trial that was continued on June 28, 2001. After the trial Craig Maki remarked to the Plaintiff that “the law can be enforced in two ways”. he Defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds for pressing charges, procuring the prosecution, conviction and punishment of the Plaintiff.

155. The Plaintiff claims that the Police occurrence reports and crown prosecutions are not legitimate. The Defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds for entrapping, assigning the caution flags “emotionally unstable” or prosecuting the Plaintiff.

156. On January 8, 2001 Special Constable M. Paquette, Sgt McClusky, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendnats responded to the Plaintiff’s complaint of false arrest, wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution and told him that “women get beat up too”.M. Paquette did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff had committed a criminal offence or was about to commit a criminal offence and that an arrest was Constable M. Paquette provided false and biased information used by CAS lawyer Jean Jacque Paquette and the Crown attorney to maliciously prosecute the Plaintiff. The Defendants were aware that their actions were unlawful and intended to injure the Plaintiff, further MV’s vendetta against the Plaintiff and lay the foundation for CAS lawyer Jean Jacque Paquette to commence a false and baseless child protection hearing against the Plaintiff. The Defendants conduct was a deliberate and baseless exercise of public function, intended to injure the Plaintiff.

157. Between November 23rd, 2000 and September 29th, 2009, the Greater Sudbury Police Service, the Sudbury Polcie Service Board, Sudbury Police Asssociation, Special Constable M. Paquette, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady Badge 6221, M. Jeffery Badge 7690, David Beck, Craig Moxam, Todd Bignicollo, Dan Zulliani, Jeff Kuhn, Susan Leys, Tim Burtt, J. Roberston Badge 8101, L. McClosky, T. Marassato, Badge 7684, P. Smyth Badge 5478, Elaina Groves, Sandra DiCaire Badge 7685 and Badge 2752, Paul McGee, Meagan O’Malley, Jack Sivazlian, Duncan Epp, M. Robinson, Greg Bergeron, Frank Elsner, Constable Eldeama Badge 7636 were at all times employed by the Sudbury Police Services Board. The Defendnat Sudbury Police services Board is a municipal services board incorportaed puruant to the provisions of the Plice Services Act R.S.O. 1990, Chap. P.15 and was at all material times responsible for the provisions of police services, law enforcement and crime prevention in the city of Sudbury. The board, by virtue of section 50(1) of the Police services Act, and the common law, are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter.

158.The defendants were biased and failed to conduct a prudent investigation and did not consider all relevant evidence or witnesses before arresting, imprisoning, and prosecuting the Plaintiff. The police did not have the legal authority or power to arrest the Plaintiff. At the time of his arrest, the Plaintiff was not engaged in any unlawful activity and the Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that he had committed a criminal offence or was about to commit a criminal offence or that an arrest was necessary pursuant to the CC s.495(1) that states “A peace officer may arrest without warrant (a) a person who has committed an indictable offence, or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence; (b) a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence; or (c) a person in respect of whom he has reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant of arrest or committal, in any form set out in Part XXVIII in relation thereto, is in force within the territorial jurisdiction in which the person is found”. The Crown Attorney and GSPS deliberately failed their duty to ensure the charges against the Plaintiff met the Ministry’s screening standard and that all available legal proof of the facts was presented impartially, fairly and objectively. The Defendants were aware that their actions were unlawful and likely to injure the Plaintiff. The Defendants were aware that their actions were unlawful with the intent to injure the Plaintiff and for the own self promotion.The defendants were biased and failed to conduct a prudent investigation and did not consider all relevant evidence and excluded witnesses before arresting, imprisoning, and prosecuting the Plaintiff.

??

159. On Sept 29, 2009 Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants conspired with Durham Region Police PC Wood and PC Moores to falsely arrest and prosecute the Plaintiff as a result of more false allegations that were made by MV and the slanderous information that was sent by the Defendants to the Durham Police on or about May 2009 that were known to be false. The Defendnats did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe the allegations made against the Plaintiff, arrest or detain him and acted On April 8, 2010 Durham Crown Attorney Sandy Kahra withdrew all the charges against the Plaintiff on the condition that the Plaintiff sign a peace bond to keep the peace. The Plaintiff, in order to avoid an expensive trial and further financial penalty from missed employment, signed the peace bond and returned to work to support his family.The Plaintiff claims that the Police occurrence reports and crown prosecutions are not legitimate. The Defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds for entrapping, assigning the caution flags “emotionally unstable” or prosecuting the Plaintiff.

 

160. On July 8th, 2011 Craig Maki acted for his own self promotion when he created an illegitimate occurance report in reponnse to a letter that was written by the Plaintiff’s child addressed to Judge McLeod Nad Buttuzonni and asking for unsupervised visists. The Plaintiff claims that the Police occurrence reports and crown prosecutions are not legitimate. The Defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds for assigning the caution flags “emotionally unstable” or prosecuting the Plaintiff.

161. On July 12, 2011 the Defendants acted with malice and arrested the Plaintiff for criminal harassment that originated from Craig Maki’s illegitimate occurrence report dated July 8, 2011 that was intended to suppress the Plaintiff’s efforts at exposing corruption within the CAS, Police, and courts.

162. On July 13, 2011 Justice of the Peace (JOP) Ruby Beck and North Bay Crown Attorney John Holland conspired with Sudbury’s Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Susan Bruce, Todd Bignocollo, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Sudbury MPP Rick Bartolucci, and the other Defendants to fraudulently obtain a search that originated from Craig Maki’s illegitimate occurrence report dated July 8, 2011 and exercised on the Plaintiff’s home by Todd Bignocollo who illegally seized the Plaintiff’s computers personal information; and the personal information of the previous owners of those computers.
163. Ruby Beck for improper purposes illegally issued a search warrant to Todd Bignocollo to begin an illegal prosecution of the Plaintiff and seize his personal information for an offense under Part III of the POA for the alleged violation of s.136 (1) of the Courts of Justice Act which is “a prohibition against photography, etc., at court hearing” that involved Judge Malcolm McLeod in Sudbury Ontario on or about June 27, 2011.

164. Ruby Beck is neither a provincial court judge, or a judge of the Superior court as defined in s.552 of the CCC.

The Criminal Code of Canada provides authorization for “reasonable and lawful access” to personal information found in computers subject to privacy legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section186. (1) of the CCC states authorization under this section may be given if the judge as defined in s.552 to whom the application is made is satisfied;

(a) that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so; and

(b) that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed or the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures.

165. Judge Malcolm MacLeod said that he “could make things difficult” for the Plaintiff when he claimed that he couldn’t understand the Plaintiff’s motion for access to his child in April 2011. The Defendant’s conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion.

166. Todd Bignocollo and the other Defendants deliberately failed to trace the Plaintiff’s IP address. Instead they maliciously exercised a search warrant, caused damaged to the Plaintiff’s residence and seized the Plaintiff’s person information. The search and seizure of the Plaintiff’s personal information was negligent, unreasonable, contravened privacy legislation, the Criminal Code, and was not authorized by law.
167. Ruby Beck is neither a provincial court judge, or a judge of a superior court, or a judge as defined in s.552 of the Criminal Code of Canada and illegally issued Todd Bignocollo the search warrant without a sworn statement, signature or sworn affidavit as required under s.185 (b), (c), (d), (e), and of the Criminal Code. The Defendant’s conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function with the intent to harass and injure the Plaintiff.
168. Ruby Beck issued a for improper purposes issued a search warrant that that did not contain a sworn information that deposed to the following matters:the facts relied on to justify the belief that an authorization should be given together with particulars of the offence, the type of private communication proposed to be intercepted,the names, addresses and occupations, if known, of all persons, the interception of whose private communications there are reasonable grounds to believe may assist the investigation of the offence, a general description of the nature and location of the place, if known, and which private communications are proposed to be intercepted; and whether other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or why it appears they are unlikely to succeed or that the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures.The Defendant’s conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function with the intent to harass and injure the Plaintiff.

169. Todd Bignocollo, Tim Burtt, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, John Luczak, Kedrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants acted malice after executing the search warrant and seizing the Plaintiff’s personal information when they further failed to follow lawful procedure for lawful access to personal information. Section 158.2 (1) s.s.(2)(b) of the Provincial Offences Act states that “a person has, under a warrant issued under this or any other Act or otherwise in the performance of his or her duties under an Act, seized any thing, (I) upon or in respect of which an offence has been or is suspected to have been committed, and b) no procedure for dealing with the personal information is otherwise provided by law”. The Criminal Code of Canada provides for “reasonable and lawful access” to personal information found in computers subject to privacy legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
170. Todd Bignocollo, Tim Burtt, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants acted unlawfully when they made copies of the Plaintiff’s information and the information of the previous owners of the computers that were illegally seized. The Criminal Code of Canada provides for “reasonable and lawful access” to personal information found on computers subject to privacy legislation, the Criminal Code, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

171. Todd Bignocollo, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette, Susan Stothart, John Holland, Susan Bruce, Leonard Kim and the other Defendants deliberately failed to bring an application to the Superior court for accessing and making copies of the Plaintiff’s personal information. Section 185 of the CCC states that (1) An application for an authorization to be given under section 186 shall be made ex parte and in writing to a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 and shall be signed by the Attorney General of the province in which the application is made or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or an agent specially designated in writing for the purposes of this section by;

(a) the Minister personally or the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness personally, if the offence under investigation is one in respect of which proceedings, if any, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, or

172. Todd Bignocollo, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette, Susan Stothart, John Holland, Susan Bruce, Leonard Kim and the other Defendants conduct was unlawful, unreasonable and violated the Plaintiff’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Criminal Code of Canada provides for “reasonable and lawful access” to personal information found on computers subject to privacy legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

173. Todd Bignocollo, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette, Susan Stothart, John Holland, Susan Bruce, Leonard Kim and the other Defendants acted with malice when they seized, copied and searched the Plaintiff’s personal information. The Criminal Code provides authorization for seizing, copying and searching computers, data, and personal information. Section 487.01 (1) of the Criminal Code states that “A provincial court judge, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 may issue a warrant in writing authorizing a peace officer to, subject to this section, use any device or investigative technique or procedure or do any thing described in the warrant that would, if not authorized, constitute an unreasonable search or seizure in respect of a person or a person’s property”. The Defendant’s conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function with the intent to harass and injure the Plaintiff.

174. Todd Bignocollo, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette, Susan Stothart, John Holland, Susan Bruce, Leonard Kim and the other Defendants acted with improper motives when they seized, copied and searched the Plaintiff’s personal information. The Criminal Code of Canada provides the authority for making copies of personal information. Section 487 (2.2) of the Criminal Code authorizes a person conducting a search of a computer system for data to permit the person: (a) to search any data contained in or available to the computer system for data that the person is authorized by this section to search for; (b) to obtain a hard copy of the data and to seize it; and (c) to use or cause to be used any copying equipment at the place to make copies of the data when issued by a judge as defined by s.552 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Todd Bignocollo, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette, Susan Stothart, John Holland, Susan Bruce, Leonard Kim and the other Defendants failed to obtain property authority and followed procedure when seized, searched, and made copies of the Plaintiff’s personal information.

175. The Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his personal computer as did the individuals who previously owned the Plaintiff’s pre owned computers. Todd Bignocollo and the other Defendants unlawfully analysed the Plaintiff’s information and made copies of the Plaintiff’s personal data contrary to the CCC.

176.The Defendants search and seizure was unreasonable and not authorized by law. The Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his personal computer as did the individuals who previously owned the Plaintiff’s pre owned computers.

177. The Plaintiff claims that Todd Bignocollo, Leonard Kim, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette, Susan Bruce, Susan Stothart and the other Defendants failed to seek assistance from an independant computer forensic expert to assist him to draft reasonable limitations on the search of the accused’s computer and personal information.

178.Todd Bignocollo’s forensic analysis of the Plaintiff’s computers and personal information was biased, unlawful and a deliberate violation of the Plaintiffs right to life, liberty and security of the person.

179. Todd Bignolcollo and the other Defendants failed to deal with the Plaintiff’s computers and his personal information as provided the CCC and unlawfully seized and made copies of the Plaintiff’s personal information contrary to the CCC.

180. The defendants were not authorized under Criminal Code or the Provincial Offences Act to seize the Plaintiff’s computers and make copies his personal information. The Defendants acted unlawfully and with full knowledge that their acts were unlawful act. The search, seizure and duplication of the Plaintiff’s personal information by the Defendants was unlawful, unreasonable and undertaken with malice and in bad faith. The search of the Plaintiff was not authorized by law and a deliberate infringement of his Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

181. Todd Bignocollo, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Jean Jaque Paquette, John Luczak, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants for their own self promotion returned the Plaintiff’s computers to him on October 21, 2011, two days after the date specified in the illegal search warrant and one day after the criminal harassment trial that followed on October 18th, 19th, and 20th 2011 with the intent to deny the Plaintiff the right to make full answer and defence to the charge of criminal harassment.

182. The intentional and unauthorized interception of the Plaintiff’s computers and private information is an offence under the Criminal Code and the Defendants conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function with the intent to harass, punish and injure the Plaintiff The Defendants were aware that their actions were unlawful, in contravention of the standard required by law. The search of the Plaintiff was not authorized by law and a deliberate infringement of his Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

183. Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini and the other Defendants failed to ensure that their primary duty is to serve the community, the source of their salaries; and that the their duty includes upholding public values, such as fairness, morals and transparency.

184. Between 2000 and 2013, Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants disregarded public values, such as fairness, morals and transparency and denied the Plaintiff and the general public any information regarding the public institution of law enforcement and child protection in Ontario.

185. On June 8, 2012 Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants for improper purposes denied the Plaintiff’s request for information pursuant to the Municipal Freedoms of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) that requested a copy of the Police Association bylaws and the names and addresses of Association members falsely claiming that “disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of a law enforcement officer or other person”. The Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe anyone’s life or physical safety would be endangered would be endangered by the Plaintiff.

186. On August 9, 2012 Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants for improper purposes responded to the Plaintiff’s request for information pursuant to the MFIPPA that requested the amount of public funds used by the Defendants to deny the Plaintiff information between 2000-2013 claiming that :

a) falsely claimed that no electronic financial records exist beyond 2008 for the cost of opposing and denying the Plaintiff access to public information.

b) the Defendants fraudulently claimed to have compensate the law firm of Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart and Storie the amount of $15,000 between 2010 and 2013 .

5. On September 18, 2012 Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini and the other Defendants acted with improper intentions when they claimed that:

a) improperly claimed that the Greater Sudbury Police Service Board did not meet the definition of an institution,

b) improperly claimed that the Greater Sudbury Police Service Board does not have access to the association bilaw or names of members. is not the Sudbury Police Association,

c) improperly claimed that the Greater Sudbury Police Service Board is not the Sudbury Police Association.

187. On or about January 2013 Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini and the other Defendants acted with malice and improper motives when they deliberately sent false, incomplete and slanderous information to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario that was in response to a Freedom of Information request by the Plaintiff inquiring “who, why and when” the Defendants assigned the caution flags “emotionally unstable” to the Plaintiff. Cautions flags are based on an officers observations, including notes and legitimate police occurrence reports relating to any legitimate police occurrence.

a) The Defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds for prosecuting or assigning the caution flags “emotionally unstable” to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff provided three the independent assessments to the Defendants but not to the IPCO.

188. The Plaintiff claims that Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini and the other Defendants cautions flags, arrest, and prosecutions of the Plaintiff are not legitimate.

189. The Plaintiff claims that Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Pierre Bradley, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Robin Tiplady and the other Defendants use of caution flags against the Plaintiff is an improper and unlawful exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion and to harass the Plaintiff.

190. Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini falsely reported to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario IPCO that they had obtained “various opinions from several mental health professionals” regarding the Plaintiff’s mental health.

a) The Plaintiff claims not to have been assessed by any of the Defendants assessors and that Defendants for improper purposes withheld any information from the Plaintiff about the mental health professionals that allegedly provided their opinions to the Defendants.

b) have a long personal history of creating illegitimate occurrence reports, falsely arresting, and maliciously prosecuting the Plaintiff on allegations of assault, criminal harassment, breach of probation and child protection reports that are known by the Defendants to be false.

191. Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants deliberately failed their duty to ensure that all available legal proof of the facts was presented impartially, fairly and objectively; and for their own self promotion failed to acknowledge the Social Work Report of the Children’s Lawyer dated 2002, a mandatory employment assessment dated October 25th, 2005 and an independent assessment dated November 30, 2010 regarding the Plaintiff’s mental health. The Defendants conduct was an improper and abusive exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion and to harass the Plaintiff.

192. The Defendants deliberately intended to subvert or abuse the office of the Attorney General, law enforcement, and the process of criminal justice such that he or she failed their duty to ensure that the charges against the Plaintiff met the Ministry’s screening standard and that all available legal proof of the facts was presented impartially, fairly, and objectively. The Defendant’s exceeded their boundaries of the Law enforcement for their own self promotion and deliberately infringed the Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Defendnants conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion and to injure the Plaintiff and his child; are vicariously liable for damages in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff’s child and, damages and violations of their rights as guaranteed by the Charter.

BASIS FOR CLAIM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO JOHN LUCZAK, KENDRICK ABBOTT, MERIEL ANDERSON, SUSAN BRUCE, MARC HUNEAULT, JOHN HOLLAND, LEILA MEHKERI, RUBY BECK, MICHEL J. MOREAU, MICHAEL G. KITLAR, SUSAN STOTHART, LEONARD KIM, DIANNE LAFLUER, ANDREA BEAL, RIA BIGNOCOLLO, HELENE BRYDGES

193. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the previous claims against the other Defendnats and;

194. The Plaintiff claims that Attorney Geneneral for Ontario, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, John Holland and the other Defendnats had ultimate control over government policies that were exercised during the administration of their authority when they maliciously commenced criminal prosecutions against the Plaintiff without reasonable and probable grounds based on the circumstances known to the Defendnats at the time.

195. That John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the others Defendnats conspred with J. Roberstson, Special Constable M. Paquette, Robin Tiplady, Craig Maki, M. Jeffery, Jean Jacque Paquette, Pierre Bradley and the other Defendants including MV and Dianne Fisher and acted for their own self promotion when MV and Dianne Fisher asked the Defendnts how she should “take care of her situation” and began to make false allegations to the Plocie and Crown. The Polcie and Crown knew the allegations were false. The arresst, prosecution and wronful imprisonment of the Plaintiff was malicious.

196. John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, John Holland, Susan Stothart, Leonard Kim and the other Defendnats maliciously persecuted the Plaintiff on allegations that were known to be false; and that were a result of false allegations and illegitimate occurance reports that were fraudlently created by Special Constable M. Paquette, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, M. Jeffery, J. Roberston L. McClosky, T. Marassato, Badge 7684, P. Smyth Badge 5478, Elaina Groves, Sandra DiCaire Badge 7685 and Badge 2752, Paul McGee, Meagan O’Malley, Jack Sivazlian, Duncan Epp, M. Robinson, Greg Bergeron, Constable Eldeama Badge 7636 and are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff’a rights as guaranteed by the Charter.

197. John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the others Defendnats acted with improper purpose in contravention of the standard required by law when prosecution the Plaintiff and then black mailed the Plaintiff to plead guilty to assault and breaach charges of probation charges in order to be released other charges of uttering death threats, etc would be withdrawn. The Plaintiff under duress, financial hardship and to save his employment and support his famiy was left with no other choice but to plead guilty or remain in jail cuasing further finacila hardship and his family to suffer. The prosecution(s) of the Plaintiff by John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the others Defendnats was malicious and are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter.

198. On or about September 20, 2000 Jean Jacque Paquette, Special Constable M. Paquette, MV and Dianne Fisher for improper purposes filed a malicious “non emergency” child protection report with the Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin (CAS) lawyer Jean Jacque Paquette. The allegations against the Plaintiff were known by the Defendants to be false and used for their own self promotion and to injure the Plaintiff.

199. On November 23, 2000, the Plaintiff was found not guilty of assault, uttering threats, assualt causing bodily harm, and breach of probation as a result of charges that were laid by Special Constable M. Paquette Badge # 2752 and Sandra Dicaire Badge 7685. John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, and the other Defendnats maliciously prosecuted the Plaintiff without reasonable and probable grounds improper motives inclucing their own self promotions. Also on Nobember 23, 2000 Megan O’Malley acted with bad intention when Megan she approached and entered the Plaintiff’s vehicle looking for sex. Meagan O’Malley entrapped the Plaintiff.June 28, 2001 John Luczak, Kendrick Abbottt, Susan Bruce, Craig Moxam, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady and the other Defendants acted with improper motive when their Kendrick Abbott’s legal secretary Mieriel Anderson filed an affidavid swearing under oath that the Police video in which Meagan O’Malley, Craig Moxam and Craig Maki falsely claimed that the Plaintif was emotionally unstable had been misplaced and is not available for the trial. At the trial Craig Maki remarked to the Plaintif that “the law can be enforced in two ways”. The Plaintiff was entraped by the Defendants. Cautions flags are based on an officers observations, including notes and legitimate police occurrence reports relating to any legitimate police occurrence. The Plaintiff claims that Craig Moxam, Craig Moxam, Robin Tiplady and the Defendnants occurrence reports, crown breifs and crown prosecutions are not legitimate. The Defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds for assigning the caution flags “emotionally unstable”. Failed to ensure that their primary duty is to serve the community, the source of their salaries; and that the their duty includes upholding public values, such as fairness, morals, transparancy and accountability.

200. Betweem 2002-2013 the Plaintiff voluntarily attended for three assessments in addtion to the regular assessment s that were required as a condition of his employmnent. John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Jean Jacque Paquette, and the other Defendants that were dismissed by the Defendnats who for theirown self promotion suggested that he be assessed by a assessor who was a agent/servent to the Defendants.

201. On or about May 2009, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Jean Jacque Paquette, and the other Defendants acted with malice and bad intention when they sent the Durham Police a malicious report that described the Plaintiff as emotionally unstable, unpredictable, etc. The chrges against the Plaintiff were withdrawn. Cautions flags are based on an officers observations, including notes and legitimate occurrence reports relating to any legitimate police occurrence. The Plaintiff claims that Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam and the other Defendant’s occurrence reports and child protection reports are not legitimate.

202. Susan Bruce and the others Defendnats maliciously prosecuted the Plaintiff as a result of allegations and charges that were known by the Dfendnats to be false. The Defendants acted with malice and did not have reasonable and probable grounds to prosecute the charges of assault, criminal harrassment, uttering threats and assualt causing bodily harm that were made against the Plaintiff; or to prosecute and imprison him.

203. October 16th, 17th, and 18th 2011 John Luczak, Jean Jacque Paquette, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants for their own self promotion maliciously prosecuted the Plaintiff. The Plaintif recorded the trial and ;

a) the Plaintiff did not ask the court for permission to record the sentencing hearing December 15, 2011 because the Plaintif did not bring the recorder or any other personal belongings becuase he was excpecting to go to jail and hearinfg was a sentencing hearing.

b) The trancripts of the sentencing hearing held on December 15, 2015 that were ordered by the Crown are fruadulent. The Plaintiff did not record the sentencing hearing or or ask for the court’s permission to record to record the sentencing hearing on ecedmber 15th, 2011.

c) The Plaintiff recorded the entire trial on October 16th, 17th, and 18th 2011. Susan Bruce and Judge Glaude forced the Plaintiff stop recording on October 18, 2011 which was the last day of the trial and not as transcribed in the certified court transcript dated December 15ht, 2011

203. On October 18, 2011 at the conlusion of the trial, Susan Bruce and Judge Glaude after forcing the Plaintiff to stop recording made her closing arguments to Judge Glaude.

204. Susan Bruce made her closing arguement in which she alleged an entirely new charge against the Plaintiff s.136 Courts of Justice Act (prohibition against photography at a courthouse) which no evidence was introduced during the trial that was recorded by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff objected to Susan Bruces deliberate under handnesses. Judge Glaude continued to overrule the Plaintiff’s objections and in his rulinng December 15, 2011 said that he “believes Susan Bruce” implying that he believes usan Bruce and the other Defendnats that it is neccessary to stop and punish the Plaintiff for exposing CA$ corruption.

205. Susan Bruce and the other Defendants prosecuted the Plaintif on a fradualent crown breif that was created by an illegitimate occurance report. Judge Glaude convicted the Plaintiff of criminal harrassment on October 18, 2011 and ordered a presentence report before sentencing.The matter was adjourned to December 15, 2011. Judge Norman Gluade in contravention of the standard required by the Criminal Code convicted the Plaintiff of criminally harassing CAS worker Josh Negusanti. Judge Gluade’s decision was not appealed by the Paintiff becuase of the lack of credibility in the CAS courts and the financial costs of appealing.

206. On December 15, 2011 Judge Glaude sentenced the Plaintiff as expected and he was immediately place under arrest and told that failure to willingly provide a DNA sample would result in using force to obtain the sample. The Plaintiff unwillingly cooperated.

207. Susan Stothart is following by example and left New Brunswick for Ontario where there are no Whistle Blower laws to protect the public for exposing corruption in the government.

208. September 29th, 2010 John Luczak, Susan Stothart, Susan Bruce, Kendrick Abbott, Leonard Kim, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants deliberately failed to prosecute MV after she was charged by GSPS Badge 8609 for threatening and criminal harassment against the Plaintiff. The matter went to trial and Leonard Kim, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Susan Stothart deliberately failed their duty to ensure the prosecution met the Ministry’s acceptable standard and that all available legal proof of the facts, witnesses and victim was presented impartially, fairly and objectively. Leonard Kim with malice and bad intention deliberately failed to prosecute or call the victim, witnessess or police officer to testify at the mock trial. The Defendants were aware that their actions were biassed and were intended for their own self promotion with the intent to injure the Plaintiff.

209. On July 12, 2011 the Defendants acted with malice and arrested the Plaintiff for criminal harassment against the CAS that originated from Craig Maki’s illegitimate occurrence report dated July 8, 2011 that was intended to suppress the Plaintiff’s efforts at exposing corruption within the CAS, Police, and courts.

210. On July 13, 2011 Justice of the Peace (JOP) Ruby Beck and North Bay Crown Attorney John Holland conspired with Sudbury’s Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Susan Bruce, Todd Bignocollo, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Sudbury MPP Rick Bartolucci, and the other Defendants to fraudulently obtain a search that originated from Craig Maki’s illegitimate occurrence report dated July 8, 2011 and exercised on the Plaintiff’s home by Todd Bignocollo who illegally seized the Plaintiff’s computers personal information; and the personal information of the previous owners of those computers.
211. Ruby Beck for improper purposes illegally issued a search warrant to Todd Bignocollo to begin an illegal prosecution of the Plaintiff and seize his personal information for an offense under Part III of the POA for the alleged violation of s.136 (1) of the Courts of Justice Act which is “a prohibition against photography, etc., at court hearing” that involved Judge Malcolm McLeod in Sudbury Ontario on or about June 27, 2011.

212. Ruby Beck is neither a provincial court judge, or a judge of the Superior court as defined in s.552 of the CCC. The Criminal Code of Canada provides authorization for “reasonable and lawful access” to personal information found in computers subject to privacy legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section186. (1) of the CCC states authorization under this section may be given if the judge as defined in s.552 to whom the application is made is satisfied;

(a) that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so; and

(b) that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed or the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures.

213. Judge Malcolm MacLeod said that he “could make things difficult” for the Plaintiff when he claimed he couldn’t understand the Plaintiff’s motion for access to his child in April 2011. The Defendant’s conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion.
214. Ruby Beck is neither a provincial court judge, or a judge of a superior court, or a judge as defined in s.552 of the Criminal Code of Canada and illegally issued Todd Bignocollo the search warrant without a sworn statement, signature or sworn affidavit as required under s.185 (b), (c), (d), (e), and (h) that state (b) the Attorney General of a province personally or the Deputy Attorney General of a province personally, in any other case, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit, which may be sworn on the information and belief of a peace officer or public officer deposing to the following matters:

(c) the facts relied on to justify the belief that an authorization should be given together with particulars of the offence,

(d) the type of private communication proposed to be intercepted,

(e) the names, addresses and occupations, if known, of all persons, the interception of whose private communications there are reasonable grounds to believe may assist the investigation of the offence, a general description of the nature and location of the place, if known, at which private communications are proposed to be intercepted and a general description of the manner of interception proposed to be used,

(h)whether other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or why it appears they are unlikely to succeed or that the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures.

215. Todd Bignocollo and the other Defendants deliberately failed to trace the Plaintiff’s IP address. Instead they maliciously exercised a search warrant and seized the Plaintiff’s person information. The search and seizure of the Plaintiff’s personal information was negligent, unreasonable, contravened privacy legislation, the Criminal Code, and was not authorized by law.

216. Todd Bignocollo, Tim Burtt, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, John Luczak, Kedrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants acted malice after executing the search warrant and seizing the Plaintiff’s personal information when they further failed to follow lawful procedure for lawful access to personal information. Section 158.2 (1) s.s.(2)(b) of the Provincial Offences Act states that “a person has, under a warrant issued under this or any other Act or otherwise in the performance of his or her duties under an Act, seized any thing, (I) upon or in respect of which an offence has been or is suspected to have been committed, and b) no procedure for dealing with the personal information is otherwise provided by law”. The Criminal Code of Canada provides for “reasonable and lawful access” to personal information found in computers subject to privacy legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

217. Todd Bignocollo, Tim Burtt, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants acted unlawfully when they made copies of the Plaintiff’s information and the information of the previous owners of the computers that were illegally seized. The Criminal Code of Canada provides for “reasonable and lawful access” to personal information found on computers subject to privacy legislation, the Criminal Code, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

218. Todd Bignocollo, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette, Susan Stothart, John Holland, Susan Bruce, Leonard Kim and the other Defendants deliberately failed to bring an application to the Superior court for accessing and making copies of the Plaintiff’s personal information. Section 185 of the CCC states that (1) An application for an authorization to be given under section 186 shall be made ex parte and in writing to a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 and shall be signed by the Attorney General of the province in which the application is made or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or an agent specially designated in writing for the purposes of this section by;

(a) the Minister personally or the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness personally, if the offence under investigation is one in respect of which proceedings, if any, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, or

(b) the Attorney General of a province personally or the Deputy Attorney General of a province personally, in any other case, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit, which may be sworn on the information and belief of a peace officer or public officer deposing to the following matters:

(c) the facts relied on to justify the belief that an authorization should be given together with particulars of the offence,

(d) the type of private communication proposed to be intercepted,

(e) the names, addresses and occupations, if known, of all persons, the interception of whose private communications there are reasonable grounds to believe may assist the investigation of the offence, a general description of the nature and location of the place, if known, at which private communications are proposed to be intercepted and a general description of the manner of interception proposed to be used,

f) the number of instances, if any, on which an application has been made under this section in relation to the offence and a person named in the affidavit pursuant to paragraph (e) and on which the application was withdrawn or no authorization was given, the date on which each application was made and the name of the judge to whom each application was made,

(g) the period for which the authorization is requested, and

(h) whether other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or why it appears they are unlikely to succeed or that the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures.

signature or sworn affidavit as required under s.185 (b), (c), (d), (e), and (h) The Defendant’s conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function with the intent to harass and injure the Plaintiff.

219. Todd Bignocollo, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette, Susan Stothart, John Holland, Susan Bruce, Leonard Kim and the other Defendants conduct was unlawful, unreasonable and violated the Plaintiff’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Criminal Code of Canada provides for “reasonable and lawful access” to personal information found on computers subject to privacy legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

220. Todd Bignocollo, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette, Susan Stothart, John Holland, Susan Bruce, Leonard Kim and the other Defendants acted with malice when they seized, copied and searched the Plaintiff’s personal information.
221.The Criminal Code provides authorization for seizing, copying and searching computers, data, and personal information. Section 487.01 (1) of the Criminal Code states that “A provincial court judge, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 may issue a warrant in writing authorizing a peace officer to, subject to this section, use any device or investigative technique or procedure or do any thing described in the warrant that would, if not authorized, constitute an unreasonable search or seizure in respect of a person or a person’s property”. The Defendant’s conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function with the intent to harass and injure the Plaintiff.

222. John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette, Susan Stothart, Ruby Beck, John Holland, Susan Bruce, Leonard Kim and the other Defendants acted with improper motives when they seized, copied and searched the Plaintiff’s personal information. The Criminal Code of Canada provides the authority for making copies of personal information. The Defendnats did not have legal authority. Section 487 (2.2) of the Criminal Code authorizes a person conducting a search of a computer system for data to permit the person: (a) to search any data contained in or available to the computer system for data that the person is authorized by this section to search for; (b) to obtain a hard copy of the data and to seize it; and (c) to use or cause to be used any copying equipment at the place to make copies of the data when issued by a judge as defined by s.552 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Todd Bignocollo, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette, Susan Stothart, John Holland, Susan Bruce, Leonard Kim and the other Defendants failed to obtain the property authority and followed procedure when seized, searched, and made copies of the Plaintiff’s personal information.

223. The Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his personal computer as did the individuals who previously owned the Plaintiff’s pre owned computers. Todd Bignocollo and the other Defendants unlawfully analysed the Plaintiff’s information and made copies of the Plaintiff’s personal data contrary to the CCC.

224.The Defendants search and seizure was unreasonable and not authorized by law. The Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his personal computer as did the individuals who previously owned the Plaintiff’s pre owned computers.

225. The Plaintiff claims that Todd Bignocollo, Leonard Kim, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette, Susan Bruce, Susan Stothart and the other Defendants failed to seek assistance from an independant computer forensic expert to assist him to draft reasonable limitations on the search of the accused’s computer and personal information.

226.Todd Bignocollo’s forensic analysis of the Plaintiff’s computers and personal information was biased, unlawful and a deliberate violation of the Plaintiffs right to life, liberty and security of the person.

227. Todd Bignolcollo and the other Defendants failed to deal with the Plaintiff’s computers and his personal information as provided the CCC and unlawfully seized and made copies of the Plaintiff’s personal information contrary to the CCC.

228. The defendants were not authorized under Criminal Code or the Provincial Offences Act to seize the Plaintiff’s computers and make copies his personal information. The Defendants acted unlawfully and with full knowledge that their acts were unlawful act. The search, seizure and duplication of the Plaintiff’s personal information by the Defendants was unlawful, unreasonable and undertaken with malice and in bad faith. The search of the Plaintiff was not authorized by law and a deliberate infringement of his Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

229. Todd Bignocollo, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Jean Jaque Paquette, John Luczak, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants for their own self promotion returned the Plaintiff’s computers to him on October 21, 2011, two days after the date specified in the illegal search warrant and one day after the criminal harassment trial that followed on October 18th, 19th, and 20th 2011 with the intent to deny the Plaintiff the right to make full answer and defence to the charge of criminal harassment.

230. The intentional and unauthorized interception of the Plaintiff’s computers and private information is an offence under the Criminal Code and the Defendants conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function with the intent to harass, punish and injure the Plaintiff The Defendants were aware that their actions were unlawful, in contravention of the standard required by law. The search of the Plaintiff was not authorized by law and a deliberate infringement of his Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

231. Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini and the other Defendants failed to ensure that their primary duty is to serve the community, the source of their salaries; and that the their duty includes upholding public values, such as fairness, morals and transparency.

232. Between 2000 and 2013, Jeff Kuhn, Jamie Canapini, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants disregarded public values, such as fairness, morals and transparency and denied the Plaintiff and the general public any information regarding the public institution of law enforcement and child protection in Ontario.

233. On June 8, 2012 Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants for improper purposes denied the Plaintiff’s request for information pursuant to the Municipal Freedoms of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) that requested a copy of the Police Association bylaws and the names and addresses of Association members falsely claiming that “disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of a law enforcement officer or other person”. The Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe anyone’s life or physical safety would be endangered would be endangered by the Plaintiff.
234. On August 9, 2012 Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants for improper purposes responded to the Plaintiff’s request for information pursuant to the MFIPPA that requested the amount of public funds used by the Defendants to deny the Plaintiff information between 2000-2013 claiming that :

a) falsely claimed that no electronic financial records exist beyond 2008 for the cost of opposing and denying the Plaintiff access to public information.

b) the Defendants fraudulently claimed to have compensate the law firm of Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart and Storie the amount of $15,000 between 2010 and 2013.
235. On September 18, 2012 Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini and the other Defendants acted with improper intentions when they claimed that:

a) improperly claimed that the Greater Sudbury Police Service Board did not meet the definition of an institution,

b) improperly claimed that the Greater Sudbury Police Service Board does not have access to the association bilaw or names of members. is not the Sudbury Police Association,

c) improperly claimed that the Greater Sudbury Police Service Board is not the Sudbury Police Association.

236. On or about January 2013 Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini and the other Defendants acted with malice and improper motives when they deliberately sent false, incomplete and slanderous information to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario that was in response to a Freedom of Information request by the Plaintiff inquiring “who, why and when” the Defendants assigned the caution flags “emotionally unstable” to the Plaintiff. Cautions flags are based on an officers observations, including notes and legitimate police occurrence reports relating to any legitimate police occurrence. The Defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds for prosecuting or assigning the caution flags “emotionally unstable” to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff provided three the independent assessments to the Defendants but not to the IPCO.

237. On or about June, 2013 Jack Sivazlian and the other Defendants did have reasonable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff was harassed by MV and that an arrest was necessary pursuant to the Criminal Code. The Defendants failure to arrest and prosecute MV was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function with the intent to injure the Plaintiff and promote members of the Sudbury Police Association. The failure of Robin Tiplady, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Leonard Kim and the other Defendants to arrest and prosecute and MV was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function with the intent to discriminate against the Plaintiff that resulted in a deliberate infringement of his Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
238. The Plaintiff claims that Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini and the other Defendants cautions flags, arrest, and prosecutions of the Plaintiff are not legitimate.

239. The Plaintiff claims that Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Pierre Bradley, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Robin Tiplady and the other Defendants use of caution flags against the Plaintiff is an improper and unlawful exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion and to harass the Plaintiff.

240. Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini falsely reported to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario IPCO that they had obtained “various opinions from several mental health professionals” regarding the Plaintiff’s mental health.

a) The Plaintiff claims not to have been assessed by any of the Defendants assessors and that Defendants for improper purposes withheld any information from the Plaintiff about the mental health professionals that allegedly provided their opinions to the Defendants.

b) have a long personal history of creating illegitimate occurrence reports, falsely arresting, and maliciously prosecuting the Plaintiff on allegations of assault, criminal harassment, breach of probation and child protection reports that are known by the Defendants to be false.

241. Jeff Kuhn, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Craig Moxam, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Jamie Canapini, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants deliberately failed their duty to ensure that all available legal proof of the facts was presented impartially, fairly and objectively; and for their own self promotion failed to acknowledge the Social Work Report of the Children’s Lawyer dated 2002, a mandatory employment assessment dated October 25th, 2005 and an independent assessment dated November 30, 2010 regarding the Plaintiff’s mental health. The Defendants conduct was an improper and abusive exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion and to harass the Plaintiff.

242. The Defendants deliberately intended to subvert or abuse the office of the Attorney General, law enforcement, and the process of criminal justice such that he or she failed their duty to ensure that the charges against the Plaintiff met the Ministry’s screening standard and that all available legal proof of the facts was presented impartially, fairly, and objectively. The Defendant’s exceeded their boundaries of the Law enforcement for their own self promotion and deliberately infringed the Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

243. Crimes committed by the government are harder to detect and prosecute. There are two types of offenses. Criminal offenses and Regulatory offenses. Section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act (phtography at a courthosue etc) is not a criminail offense. Regulatory offenses such as s.136 of the CJA is used to cpmtrol social behavior and as aresult affords the accused the defense of due dilegence. The Plaintigg claims the illegal amnd malicious persecution of the Plaintiff was in response to the practices that were engaged by the government that violated the Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when the Defendants acted for their own self promotion and contravened legislation including but not limited to the Police Services Act and the Handbook on Criminal Harassment for Police and Crown prosecutors that state;

POLICE SERVICES ACT

Member of the board

I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and to Canada, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Canada and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge my duties as a member of the (insert name of municipality) Police Services Board faithfully, impartially and according to the Police Services Act, any other Act, and any regulation, rule or by-law.

So help me God.

DUTIES OF POLICE OFFICERS

Preparing informations

Section 27. (1) Every information sworn by a member of a police force that alleges the commission of an offence under an Act of the Parliament of Canada or of the Legislature of Ontario shall be prepared by a member of a police force.

(2) Every information mentioned in subsection (1) shall be prepared in a manner suitable for laying before a justice of the peace, on a prescribed form where it is required

POLICE CODE OF CONDUCT

Section 2. (1) Any chief of police or other police officer commits misconduct if he or she engages in,

(a) Discreditable Conduct, in that he or she,

(b) fails to treat or protect persons equally without discrimination with respect to police services because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability,

(c) uses profane, abusive or insulting language that relates to a person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability,

(d) uses profane, abusive or insulting language or is otherwise uncivil to a member of the public,

(e) contravenes any provision of the Act or the regulations, or

(f) acts in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force of which the officer is a member;

(g) Insubordination, in that he or she,

(h) is insubordinate by word, act or demeanour, or

(i) Neglect of Duty,

(j) without lawful excuse, neglects or omits promptly and diligently to perform a duty

(k) fails to comply with any provision of Ontario Regulation 267/10 (Conduct and Duties of Police Officers Respecting Investigations by the Special Investigations Unit) made under the Act,

(l) fails to report a matter that it is his or her duty to report,

(m) fails to report anything that he or she knows concerning a criminal or other charge, or fails to disclose any evidence that he or she, or any person within his or her knowledge, can give for or against any prisoner or defendant,

(n) omits to make any necessary entry in a record,

(o) Deceit, in that he or she,

(p) knowingly makes or signs a false statement in a record,

(q) wilfully or negligently makes a false, misleading or inaccurate statement pertaining to official duties, or

(r) without lawful excuse, destroys or mutilates a record or alters or erases an entry in a record;

(s) Breach of Confidence, in that he or she,

(t) divulges any matter which it is his or her duty to keep secret,

(u) improperly uses his or her character and position as a member of a police force for private advantage;

(v) Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority, in that he or she,

(w) without good and sufficient cause makes an unlawful or unnecessary arrest,

(x) uses any unnecessary force against a prisoner or other person contacted in the execution of duty;

(y) Damage to Clothing or Equipment,in that he or she,

(z) wilfully or carelessly causes loss or damage to any article of clothing or equipment, or to any record or other property. Any chief of police or other police officer also commits misconduct if he or she conspires in, abets or is knowingly an accessory to any misconduct described in section 2.

244. The Handbook on Criminal Harassment for Police and Crown Prosecutors dated November 2012 states that;

Section 1.1 The purpose of this handbook is to provide police and Crown prosecutors with guidelines for the investigation and prosecution of criminal harassment cases and to promote an integrated criminal justice response to stalking. It was first published in 1999 and updated in 2004. The development of these guidelines was prompted by the findings and recommendations of the 1996 Department of Justice Canada review of the criminal harassment provisions in the Criminal Code.

a. The accused engaged in conduct described in subsection 264(2);

b. The complainant was harassed;

c. The accused knew that the complainant was harassed, or he or she was reckless or wilfully

blind as to whether the complainant was harassed;

d. The conduct caused the complainant to fear for his or her safety, or that of someone known to

him or her; and

e. The complainant’s fear was reasonable in all of the circumstances.

Section 4.1 The Accused Engaged in Conduct Described in Subsection 264(2) Meaning of “repeatedly”: Referred to in paragraphs 264(2)(a) and 264(2) (b), “repeatedly” means more than once but not necessarily more than twice.

Importance of the context in which the communication occurs: The trial judge must consider both “the content and the repetitious nature” of the communication, in the context in which it is made.

245. The Ontario Crown Counsel Policy Manual states that;

Factors to consider in deciding whether the evidence supports a charge of criminal harassment are:

a. whether the victim has been required to alter her or his lifestyle or choice of action because of the accused’s conduct;

b. the history of any prior relationship between the victim and the accused, in particular, things such as past incidents of abusive/violent behaviour directed towards the victim; criminal convictions for offences of violence against the victim; prior complaints made by the victim to the police;

c. any words uttered by the accused during the course of the conduct in question;

d. whether there is any direct evidence that the accused had actual knowledge as to the harassing nature of his or her course of conduct or, alternatively, was reckless as to the effect of the impugned conduct on the victim;

e. the nature of the place or location and the time of day when the conduct occurred, including whether the victim was isolated or alone, recognizing that fear can be caused or heightened depending on where and when the conduct occur;

f. evidence of others.

It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction; it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength, but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings. The Defendnants conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion and to injure the Plaintiff and his child; are vicariously liable for damages in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and his child and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff and his child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter

BASIS FOR CLAIM AGAINST PIERRE BRADLEY LAW OFFICE

246. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the previous claims against the other Defendnats and;

247. The Plaintiff claims that Pieere Bradley had an axe to grind with the Plaintiff over a complaint that was filed against him with the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) and failed to uphold the public’s standard of morals and deferred his values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of himself and the other Defendants and their agents/servants.

248. The Plaintiff claims that Pierre Bradley and the other Defendants maliciously and for improper purposes commenced a child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff without the courtesy of an interview and for improper purposes that were based on the circumstances that the Defendnats were attempting to conceal from the Plaintiff at that time.

249. Pierre Bradley ,Jean Jacque Paquette and Donald Kinsley maliciously commenced a false child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff in his absence and without the courtesy of an interview. The Defendants acted malicously and for improper purposes when they commenced and procurred the child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff based on the circumstances known to theem at the time. The Defendnats acted with malice and with the intent to injure the Plaintiff.

250. Pierre Bradley and Jean Jacque Paquette deliberately commenced a malicious child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff for improper purposes and their conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function intended to punish and injure the Plaintiff in response to his complaint that was filed with the LSUC against Pierre Bradley and the Plaintiff’s complaint against Constable M. Paquette, and other information that was known by the Plaintiff.

251. Pierre Bradley and Jean Jacque Paquette deliberately failed to uphold the public’s standard of morals and deferred his values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servants.

252. The Defendnants conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion and to injure the Plaintiff and his child; are vicariously liable for damages in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and his child rights as guaranteed by the Charter.

BASIS FOR CLAIM CHILDREN’S AID’S SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICTS OF SUDBURY AND MANITOULIN JEAN JACQUES PAQUETTE, REJEAN PARISE, COLLETTE PREVOST, NORA DOUGAN, LINDA CULLAIN, JEAN O’CONNER, DARLENE WILSON, MICHELLE GLOVER AND THE OTHER DEFENDANTS
253. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the previous claims against the other Defendants and;

254. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants had full unilateral authority over the Plaintiff’s child best interests including dental/medical needs, access, education, and general welfare and their conduct fell below that of a reasonably prudent officers.

255. Jean Jacque Paquette, Rejean Parise, Collette Prevost and the other Defendnats and or their agents/servents had ultimate control over Children’s Aid policies that were exercised during the administration of their employment and authority and failed to uphold the public’s standard of morals and deferred his values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of themselves and the other Defendants and their agents/servants.

266. The Plaintiff claims that Jean Jacque Paquette had an axe to grind with the Plaintiff for a public complaint that the Plaintiff filed against Special Constable M. Paquette in September 2000 for false arrest and malicious prosecution and for improper purposes commenced a false child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff without the courtesy of an interview and that was based on circumstances that were known to be false.

267. Jean Jacque Paquette, Pierre Bradley, Donald Kingsley and the other Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a child was at risk or suffered abuse or that protection or supervised access was necessary pursuant to the Child and Family Service Act. The Plaintiff was residing in Toronto when the Defendants began the child protection proceedings against him. The Plaintiff’s child was not at risk and the Defndnats had no reasonable grounds to believe the child was in need of and acted for their ownself promotion.

268. Jean Jacque Paquette, Pierre Bradley, Donald Kingsley and the other Defendants deiberately defaulted in the execution of good faith when they commenced and procurred the child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff and were granted a child protection order from Judge Richard Humprey.

269. The Defendants failed to ensure that their primary duty is to serve the community, the source of their salaries; and that the their duty includes upholding public values, such as fairness, morals and to promote the best interests of children and families.

270. Jean Jacque Paquette, Linda Cullian, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the Pliantiff’s child was at risk of emotional abuse or suffered abuse or that supervised access was required and Jean Jacque Paquette told the Plaintiff to “mind his own biz” when requested a supervised visit with his child.

271. Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Polim, Jean O’Conner, Michelle Glover, Linda Cullain and the other Defendnats deliberately failed to competantly access the factors consdered relevent to the child’s best interests.

272. Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Polim, Jean O’Conner, Michelle Glover, Linda Cullain and the other Defendndants for their own self promotion deliberately failed to impliment the least disruptive course of action during the delivery of their services to the Plaintiff between 2004 and 2011 and maliciously obtained no access orders against the Plaintiff causing emotional distress to both Plaintif and his child.

273. Jean Jacque Paquette, Rejean Parise, Candice Polim, Josh Negusanti, Jean O’Conner, Michelle Glover, Linda Cullain and the other Defendndants filed perjerous and slanderous CAS affidavits containing information that was known by the Defendnats to be one-sided and false throughout the child protection proceeding for the purpose of obtaining malicious no access orders against the Plaintiff.

274. Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Polim, Jean O’Conner, Michelle Glover, Linda Cullain and the othehr Defednants deliberately failed to follow the clear consistent criteria and applicable provincial standards of Child Protection in Ontario as outlined in the provincial “Elgibility Spectrum” that was intended to be used to make consistent decisions about eleigibibity for child protection services.

275. Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Polim, Jean O’Conner, Michelle Glover, Linda Cullain and the other Dfefendants deliberately failed to follow the “Risk Assessment Model for Chid Protection in Ontario” that was intended to be used to ensure decisions affecting the interests and rights of children and their parents are made and subjected to procedural safeguards throughout the maliciopus child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff.

276. The Defendents were not registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and were unlawfully engaged in the practice of social work when they provided services to the Plaintif and his family. Ontario Regulation 383/00 states that “the practice of social work is to be regulated by the Ontario College of Social Work”. The regulation prevents even a former member of the college from engaging in the practice of social work once the member has ceased their membership with the college. Section 6.1.2 states: “An inactive member shall not engage in the practice of social work in Ontario”. At the time of the supervised visit between the Plaintiff and his child, Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe his child was at risk of emotional abuse or suffered abuse or that supervision was necessary.

277. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Candice Polim, Jean O’Conner, Michelle Glover, Linda Cullain and the other Defendants breached both the Palintiff and his child’s right to be consulted and to express their views whenever significant decisions concerning the child were made, including decisions with respect to prescribing Ritalin, dental treatment/private insurance and access.

278. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Candice Poulin, Laura Fox, Christy Crreatea, Karen Fagen, Ms. Basaliom, Brendna/Loiuse Beavaus Josh Negusanti and the other Defendants deliberately and in bad faith deviated from the acceptable standard of elegibilty and delivery of child protection services when they malicously provided child protection services to the Plaintif in a manner that was disruptive and abusive.

279. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Candice Poulin, Laura Fox, Christy Crreatea, Karen Fagen, Ms. Basaliom, Brendna/Loiuse Beavaus Josh Negusanti and the other Defendants ahve created difficulties for the Plaintiff and his child to speak to, trust and feel comfortable with the Plaintiff.

280. Jean Jaque Paquette, Candice Poulin, Laura Fox, Christy Crreatea, Josh Negusanti and the other Defendants for improper purposes failed to;

a. ppromote the best interests, protection and well being of children,

b. when they deliberately sabataged the Palintiff’s supervised visits and filed false, one-sided affidavits throughout the false child protection proceeding.

c. that you have tried to get children to take a position which the children do not agree with or feel is not in their interests

d. The Defendants deliberately failed to send and receive written communications between the Palintiff and his child that were in the child’s best interests.

281. Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants deliberately failed to take into account the emotional and medical needs of children and the need for stable relationships with both parents when they refused to schedule a supervised vissit after recieveing three independant psycological assessments from qualified assessors who provided their expert opinions on access between the Plaintiff’ mental health and acceess between his child.

Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Sheila Milne and the other Defendnats had full unilateral authority over the Plaintiff’s child best interests including dental/medical needs, access, education, and general welfare and their conduct fell below that of a reasonably prudent officers.

282. In December 2004, Jean Jacque Paquette for improper purposes told the Plaintiff to “mind his own business”.
18. Jean Jacque Paquette on December 6, 2005 and Patricia Meehan on November 23, 2005 deliberately provided false information and incoplete information to Dr. Sheila Milne when they formuted their plan to obtain Ritalin. The malicious actions taken by the Dfendnats triggered emotional responses and propmted Sheila Milne to prescribe Ritalin at a titrition rate that was quicker than normally accepted by the medical community and expected by the public; and cause of injury to the Plaintiiff’s child subjecting the Plaintiff and his child to emotional distress, psychological trauma, physcila injury, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation.

??

283. That on or about December 6, 2005, Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Sheila Milne and the other Defendnats for improper purposes continued to allow Ritialin to be obtained in larger amounts after the plaintif;’s child reported that 10mg “makes his stomach hurt, made him feel dizzy, made him feel like a zombie and that he didn’t want to take it”. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants deliberately denied the Plaintiff’s child emotional and medical responses to the circumstances and continued to prescribe more Ritalin at higher dosages against the wishes of the Plaintiff and his child.

 

284. Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Sheila Milne and the other Defendnats deviated from the acceptable standard of medical care when she negligently increased the dosage from 10mg SR to 20mg SR PMS-methylphenidate . Sheila Milne noted that she had repeated communications with MV, Jean Jacque Paquette and Patricia Meehan that suddenly stopped once the prescription for Ritalin reached 40mg, the proximate time of the injury suffered by the Plaintiff’s child.

Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Sheila Milne failed to take any precautions regarding prescription drug abuse in the realm that parents and patients who have been prescribed Ritalin have been known to abuse or sell their tablets to others who wish to abuse the drug recreationally. Ritalin can be habit-forming when used in higher doses than recommended or for extended periods of time and that antidepressants may enhance the effects of Ritalin.

285. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Sheila Milne and the other Defendants conspired to conceal the accident suffered by the Plaintiffs’ child that was the proximate result of the Defendnats beach of duty and service standard expected by the public. Jean Jacque Paquette for his own self promotion in efforts said that he wasn’t comfortable with anyone else except the CAS to supervise access visits and continued to deny the Plaintiff a supervised visit in his efforts to conceal the accident suffered by the Plaintiff’s child and continue obtaining Ritalin.

286.Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants for improper purpose breached the Plaintiff and child’s rights to communicate, visit or receive visits from the Plaintiff and members of his family tat resulted in the denial of expert dental advice, devices and insurance that the Plaintif was able to provide.

287. The Plaintiff claims that the child protection orders obtained by Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants were the direct cause of the accdent and trauma suffered by the Plaintiff and his child. The Defendnats deliberate failure to promote the use of the specialized dental device to treat the Plaintiff’s child cuased the Plaintiff and his child to suffer mental anguish in the past, disfiguremnt and continued dental expenses and mental anguish into the future.

288. On May 9, 2007 Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Candice Poulin and the other Defendants acted against the wishes of the Plaintiff’s child when she maliciously and for improper purposes informed the Plaintiff that she will not accept any letters, Birthday or Christmas cards, packages, gifts, etc. that the Plaintiff left for his child and that in the future “they will all be thrown out”. Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants without reasonable cause deliberately procured the child protection proceeding and continued to deny the Plaintiff and his child any access or communication. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants refused to make use of the Plaintiff’s private dental insurance to pay R. S. D’Aloisio’s fees and denied the Plaintiff’s child access to expert dental treatment, private health coverage including dental insurance. The Defendants conduct was a deliberate abusive exercise of public function intended for self promotion and to further harass the Plaintiff.

289. On July 24, 2007 Jean Jacque Paquette, CAS worker Ms. Bisaillon, and the other Defendants acted with malice and bad intention when they falsely reported to Shelly A. DePaolis of the Sudbury Credit Bureau that there was a court order that said “the Plaintiff is responsible to pay Dr. R. S. D’Aloisio’s fees” for unsuccessfully treating the Plaintiff’s child. Jean Jacque Paquette, CAS worker Ms Bisaillon and the other Defendants deliberately provided false information to Shelly A. DePaolis who persecuted the Plaintiff for eighteen months attempting to collect Dr. R. S. D’Aloisio’s fees who had reported the Plaintiff to the Sudbury Credit Bureau. The order claimed by the Defendants was ficticious. As a result the Plaintiff filed a complaint against R. S. D’Aloisio and Shelly A. De Paolis with the Minister of Consumer Services. On November 30, 2009 Shelly A. De Paolis, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants in an email to the Minister of Consumer Services confirmed that R. S. D’Aloisio, Shelly A. Depaolis, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants have closed their claim against the Plaintiff and that there are no outstanding accounts against the Plaintiff listed with the Sudbury Credit Bureau or R.S. D’Aloisio.

290. On March 20th, 2008 Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Craig Maki and the other Defendants acted with malice and with improper purposes when he attached his name to the Plaintiff’s Superior court file that was closed in 2002. Jean Jacque Paquette accessed the Plaintiff’s Superior court file and attached a letter requesting that the court refuse the Plaintiff any leave when he attempts to obtain access to his child with the intent to justify his false child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims that Jean Jacque Paquette accessed and attached his name to the Plaintiff’s Superior court and altered it to procure and falsely justify the false child protection proceedings against the Plaintiff. Jean Jacque Paquette was not the lawyer on record for the Plaintiff’s Superior court file.

291. On November 10th, 2008 Jean Jacque Paquette, Collette Prevost acted with malice and bad intention when she refused to communicate with Rawle Elliott from the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth to discuss the Plaintiff’s concern that access to his child has not been provided for some time now by his former spouse with the support of the Sudbury Children’s Aid Society. Collette Prevost, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Pierre Bradley, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants for their own self promotion refused to meet the Plaintiff and the Provincial Advocate to discuss his concerns that extensive parental alienation has occurred as a result of the current state of affairs. Collette T. Prevost Director for the Sudbury Children’s Aid Society was suspended from the Ontario College of Social Workers on November 22nd, 2002.

292. On November 4, 2009 Jean Jacque Paquette, CAS worker Ms. Bisaillon and the other Defendants with improper motive and bad intentions when they provided information that was known to be false to the Durham CAS. The Defendants falsely reported that the Plaintiff was responsible for his child’s accident and dental fees and was ordered by the court to pay those fees. The Defendants refused to make use of the Plaintiff’s private dental insurance to pay R. S. D’Aloisio’s fees and denied the Plaintiff’s child access to expert dental treatment, private health coverage including dental insurance. The Defendants conduct was a deliberate abusive exercise of public function intended for self promotion and to further harass the Plaintiff and his child.

293. On January 26, 2011 Jean Jacque Paquette, Rejean Parise, Patricia Meehan, Josh Negusanti, Michelle Glover and the other Defendants acted with malice, bad intentions and procured the malicious child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff when they falsely claimed to support MV’s custody application in Superior court. There has never been a custody application before the courts that was initiated by MV or the Plaintiff. The Defendants falsely claimed to support a fictional custody application for their own self promotion. Jean Jacque Paquette accessed the Plaintiff’s Superior court file on March 20th, 2008 to alter the public record and give credit to his false child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff.The Plaintiff claims jean Jacque Paquette assessed the Plaintiff’s Superior court file in March 2008 to contaminate it and insert an fictous application on behalf of MV to change the public record. Jean Jacque Paquette, Court security Craig Maki, and the other Defendnats had access to those files and in the same manner created a fictoius child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff.

294. The Defendants breached and deviated from the acceptable standard of child protection and medical care during the supervision tand treatment of the Plaintiff’s child.. This breach and deviation was the direct and proximate cause of a physical injury to the Plaintiff’s child and the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff’ and his child’s emotional distress, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation.

295. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other defendants for improper purposes breached both the Palintiff and his child’s right of entitlement to both parents and the quality of life that the Plaintiff was able to provide when they malicously denied them a suppervised access visit, reasonable privacy and possession of their own personal dental expert, dental devices and private dental insurance that the Plaintif was able to provide.

.

296. Jean Jacque Paquette, Rejean Parise, Candice Polim, Josh Negusanti, Jean O’Conner, Michelle Glover, Linda Cullain and the other Defendndants denied the Plaintiff and his child’s emotional responsiveness to the circumstances and subjected the Plaintiff and his child to emotional abuse, physical injury, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alimentation. The Defendnants conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion and to injure the Plaintiff and his child; are vicariously liable for damages in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff and his  child for violations of their  rights as guaranteed by the Charter.

??

BASIS FOR CLAIM PATRICIA L. MEEHAN MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER

 

297. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the previous claims against the other Defendnats and that;

298. Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Robin Tiplady, Craig Maki and the other Defendnats had full unilateral authority over the Plaintiff’s child best interests including dental/medical needs, access, education, and general welfare and their conduct fell below that of a reasonably prudent officers.

299. Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Robin Tiplady, Craig Maki and the other Defendnats had ultimate control over Children’s Aid policies that were exercised during the administration of their employment and authority and failed to uphold the public’s standard of morals and deferred his values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of themselves and the other Defendants and their agents/servants.

300. The Plaintiff claims that Patricia Meehan for her own self promotion took the position in court against the wisher of the children and failed to ensure that their primary duty is to serve the community, the source of their salaries; and that the their duty includes upholding public values, such as fairness, morals and transparant, accountable, and representing the best interests of children.

301. Patricia Meehan did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a child was at risk or suffered abuse or that protection or supervised access was necessary pursuant to the Child and Family Service Act and procurred the malious child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff and in contrvention of the Child Law Reform Act and Courts of Justice Act.

302. Patricia Meehan deiberately defaulted in the execution of good faith when she procurred the false child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff based on circumstances known to be “suspicious” and has taken a position in couet on matters which she failed to discuss with the Plaintiff’s child before hand.

303. misled ans faled to properly inform them of their legal rights and freedoms.That the children do not trust you as their lawyer that you were bias in favor of the Children’s Aid over the child and the Plaintiff.

304. Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants for improper purposes breached both the Palintiff and his child’s right of entitlement to both parents and the quality of life that the Plaintiff was able to provide when she malicously denied them any written communictaion,misrepresented the child’s view in court, suppervised access visit, reasonable privacy and possession of their own personal dental expert, dental devices and private dental insurance that the Plaintif was able to provide.

305. Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants deliberately failed to send and receive written communications between the Palintiff and his child that were in the child’s best interets.that you have not respondedd to to their requests in a timely and proffessional manner.

306. Jean Jacque Paquette, Candice Polim, Jean O’Conner, Michelle Glover, Linda Cullain and the other Defendnats deliberately failed to competantly access the factors consdered relevent to the child\s best interests.

15. that you have failed to properly and professionally represent their interests in family court, that you ahve created difficulties for children to speak to personthey trust and feel comfortable with or to have persons who the children trust sit with them in meeting with you or access visits.

307. The Defendants have tried to get children to take a position which the children do not agree with or feel is not in their interests.

308. The Defendants that have failed to competantly access the factors consdered relevent to child.

309. Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants deliberatly failed to acknowledge the Social Work Report of the Children’s Lawyer 2002 with the intent to procured Jean Jacques Paquette and the other Defendant’s false child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff. The Defendants conduct was a deliberate, improper and unlawful exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion. Patricia Meehan also indicated that she was confused.

310. On November 1, 2005 Patricia Meehan for her own self promotion deliberately failed to report on the access visit that was deliberately sabotaged by Laura Fox on and the traumatic effects it had on the Plaintiff and his child. Patricia Meehan for her own self promotion failed to provide independent and impartial representations that were in the best interests, needs and wishes of the Plaintiff’s child.

311. On November 23, 2005 Patricia Meehan for own self promotion falsely reported to the courts that the Plaintiff’s child does not want to be improperly questioned by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claims that his child does not to be questioned inappropriately by anyone, and that his child would naturally talk about his home or school own his own.

312. Patricia Meehan on November 23, 2005 and Jean Jacque Paquette on December 6, 2005 deliberately provided false information and incoplete information to Dr. Sheila Milne when they formuted their plan to obtain Ritalin. The malicious actions taken by the Dfendnats triggered emotional responses and propmted Sheila Milne to prescribe Ritalin at a titrition rate that was quicker than normally accepted by the medical community and expected by the public; and cause of injury to the Plaintiiff’s child subjecting the Plaintiff and his child to emotional distress, psychological trauma, physcila injury, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting, parental alienation, and physcial injury.

313. The Defendnats willful and neglent conduct and false information they provided to Sheila Milne triggered emotional responses from the Plaintiff’s child that prompted Sheila Milne to neglegently prescribe Ritalin and cause of injury to the Plaintiiff’s child subjecting the Plaintiff and his child to a suspicious accident, psychological trauma.

314. That on or about December 6, 2005, Patricia Meehan, Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Pierre Bradley, Sheila Milne,Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady and the other Defendnats for improper purposes continued to allow Ritialin to be obtained in larger amounts after the plaintif;’s child reported that 10mg “makes his stomach hurt, made him feel dizzy, made him feel like a zombie and that he didn’t want to take it”. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants deliberately denied the Plaintiff’s child emotional and medical responses to the circumstances and continued to prescribe more Ritalin at higher dosages against the wishes of the Plaintiff and his child.

315. Patricia Meehan and the other Defendnats failed to properly and professionally supervise and represent the child’s interests in family court when she negligently permitted Sheila Milne to increase the dosage of Ritalin from 10mg SR to 20mg SR PMS-methylphenidate; and further to 4omg . Sheila Milne noted that she had repeated communications with MV, Jean Jacque Paquette and Patricia Meehan that suddenly stopped once the prescription for Ritalin reached 40mg, the proximate time of the injury suffered by the Plaintiff’s child.

316. Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette, Sheila Milne and the other Defendnats malicious conduct triggered emotional responses and propmted Sheila Milne to prescribe Ritalin at a titrition rate that was quicker than normally accepted by the medical community and expected by the public; and cause of injury to the Plaintiiff’s child subjecting the Plaintiff and his child to emotional distress, psychological trauma, physcila injury, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting, parental alienation and physical injury.

317. Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette, Sheila Milne and the other Defendnats failed to take any precautions regarding prescription drug abuse in the realm that parents and patients who have been prescribed Ritalin have been known to abuse or sell their tablets to others who wish to abuse the drug recreationally. Ritalin can be habit-forming when used in higher doses than recommended or for extended periods of time and that antidepressants may enhance the effects of Ritalin.

318. Patricia Meehan, Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Pierre Bradley, Sheila Milne,Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady, Sheila Milne and the other Defendants conspired to conceal from the Plaintiff the accident that was suffered by the Plaintiffs’ child in July 2006 which was the proximate result of the Defendnats beach of duty and service standard expected by the public.

319. The Plaintiff claims that the child protection orders obtained by Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants were the direct cause of the accdent and trauma suffered by the Plaintiff and his child. The Defendnats deliberate failure to promote the use of the specialized medical device to treat the Plaintiff’s child caused physical injury, mental anguish in the past, and continued medical expenses and mental anguish into the future.

320. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Sheila Milne and the other Defendants conspired to conceal the accident suffered by the Plaintiffs’ child that was the proximate result of the Defendnats beach of duty and service standard expected by the public. Jean Jacque Paquette for his own self promotion in efforts said that he wasn’t comfortable with anyone else except the CAS to supervise access visits and continued to deny the Plaintiff a supervised visit in his efforts to conceal the accident suffered by the Plaintiff’s child and continue obtaining Ritalin.

321. On May 9, 2007 Patricia Meehan and other Defendants acted against the wishes of the Plaintiff’s child when she maliciously and for improper purposes informed the Plaintiff that she will not accept any letters, Birthday or Christmas cards, packages, gifts, etc. that the Plaintiff left for his child and that in the future “they will all be thrown out”. Patricia Meehan, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants without reasonable cause deliberately procured the child protection proceeding and continued to deny the Plaintiff and his child any access or communication for their own self promotion. The Defendants conduct was a deliberate abusive exercise of public function intended for self promotion and to further harass the Plaintiff.

322. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Candice Poulin, Laura Fox, Christy Crreatea, Karen Fagen, Ms. Basaliom, Brendna/Loiuse Beavaus Josh Negusanti and the other Defendants ahve created difficulties for the Plaintiff and his child to speak to, trust and feel comfortable with the Plaintiff.

323.Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants for improper purpose breached the Plaintiff and child’s rights to communicate, visit or receive visits from the Plaintiff and members of his family tat resulted in the denial of expert dental advice, devices and insurance that the Plaintif was able to provide.

324. On July 24, 2007 Patricia Meehan, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Pierre Bradley, Susan Bruce, Jean Jacque Paquette, CAS worker Ms. Bisaillon, and the other Defendants acted with malice and bad intention when they falsely reported to Shelly A. DePaolis of the Sudbury Credit Bureau that there was a court order that stated that “the Plaintiff is responsible to pay Dr. R. S. D’Aloisio’s fees”.Jean Jacque Paquette, CAS worker Ms Bisaillon and the other Defendants deliberately provided false information to Shelly A. DePaolis of the Sudbury Credit Bureau who persecuted the Plaintiff for eighteen months attempting to collect Dr. R. S. D’Aloisio’s fees. The fictious order claimed by the Defendants was malicious. As a result the Plaintiff filed a complaint against R. S. D’Aloisio and Shelly A. De Paolis with the Minister of Consumer Services. On November 30, 2009 Shelly A. De Paolis, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants in an email to the Minister of Consumer Services confirmed that R. S. D’Aloisio, Shelly A. Depaolis, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants have closed their claim against the Plaintiff and that there are no outstanding accounts against the Plaintiff listed with the Sudbury Credit Bureau or R.S. D’Aloisio.

325. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other defendants for improper purposes breached both the Palintiff and his child’s right of entitlement to both parents and the quality of life that the Plaintiff was able to provide when they malicously denied them reasonable privacy and possession of their own personal dental expert, dental devices and private dental insurance that the Plaintif was able to provide.

326. Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Candice Polim, Jean O’Conner, Michelle Glover, Linda Cullain and the other Defendants breached both the Palintiff and his child’s right to be consulted and to express their views whenever significant decisions concerning the child were made, including decisions with respect to prescribing Ritalin, dental treatment/private insurance and access.

327. On November 10th, 2008 Patricia Meehan, Rick Bartolucci, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Pierre Bradley, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants acted with malice and bad intention when they refused to communicate with the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth to discuss the Plaintiff’s concern that access to his child has not been provided for some time now by MV and Dianne Fisher, with the illegitimate support of the Sudbury Children’s Aid Society, Patricia Meehan, Rick Bartolucci, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Pierre Bradley, Susan Bruce and the other Defendants; that extensive parental alienation has occurred as a result of the current state of affairs.

328. On November 4, 2009 Patricia Meehan, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Pierre Bradley, Susan Bruce, Jean Jacque Paquette, CAS worker Ms. Bisaillon, and the other Defendants acted with malice and bad intention when they falsely reported to the Durham CAS that the Plaintiff was responsible for his child’s accident and medical expenses and was ordered by the court to pay those fees. The Plaintiff claims there is not a court order requiring him to pay any medicla expenes and that he was not the cause of of his child’s accident. The Defendants neglegently prescribed Ritalin, deliberately fialed to make use of the Plaintiff’s private dental insurance to pay R. S. D’Aloisio’s fees and denied the Plaintiff’s child access to expert dental treatment, private health coverage including dental insurance. The Defendants conduct was a deliberate abusive exercise of public function intended for self promotion and to further harass the Plaintiff and his child.

329. On January 26, 2011 Patricia Meehan, Jean Jaque Paquette, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Pierre Bradley, Susan Bruce, Rejean Parise, Josh Negusanti, Michelle Glover and the other Defendants acted with malice, bad intentions and procured the malicious child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff when they falsely claimed to support MV’s custody application in Superior court. There has never been a custody application before the courts that was initiated by MV or the Plaintiff. The Defendants falsely claimed to support a fictional custody application Jean Jacque Paquette accessed the Plaintiff’s Superior court file on March 20th, 2008 to alter the public record for their own self promotion. The Plaintiff claims Jean Jacque Paquette assessed the Plaintiff’s Superior court file in March 2008 to contaminate it and insert an fictous applications and courts orders on behalf of MV to wite the public record. Patricia Jean Jacque Paquette, Court security Craig Maki, and the other Defendnats had access to those files, court transcripts and in the same manner created a fictoius child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff .

and failed to uphold the public’s standard of morals and deferred his values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servents…

Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, Sheila Milne and the other Defendnats had full unilateral authority over the Plaintiff’s child best interests including dental/medical needs, access, education, and general welfare and their conduct fell below that of a reasonably prudent officers.

330. In December 2004, Jean Jacque Paquette for improper purposes told the Plaintiff to “mind his own business”. Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendants deliberately failed to take into account the emotional and medical needs of children and the need for stable relationships with both parents when they refused to schedule a supervised vissit after recieveing three independant psycological assessments from qualified assessors who provided their expert opinions on access between the Plaintiff’ mental health and acceess between his child.

331. The Defendants failed to recognized social and public responsibility governance frameworks recomendations made by the Provincila Advocate for Child and Youth that are aimed at the protection of the Plaintiff and the general public from civil rights violations committed by Ontario’s Children’s Aid Societies, and failed to ensure the implementation and fulfillment of the requirements of such governance frameworks; and failed to implement.

332. The Defendants breached and deviated from the acceptable standard of child protection and medical care during the supervision tand treatment of the Plaintiff’s child. This breach and deviation was the direct and proximate cause of a physical injury to the Plaintiff’s child and the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff’ and his child’s emotional distress, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alienation.

333. The Plaintiff claims that the child protection orders obtained by Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and the other Defendants were the direct cause of the accdent and trauma suffered by the Plaintiff and his child. The Defendnats deliberate failure to promote the use of the specialized dental device to treat the Plaintiff’s child cuased the Plaintiff and his child to suffer mental anguish in the past, disfiguremnt and continued dental expenses and mental anguish into the future when the deliberately contravened the Child Law Reform Act and Child and Family Services Act that state;.

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM ACT

Rule of parentage

Section (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Part, the father and the mother of a child are equally entitled to access and custody of the child.

Use of evidence

Section 21.1(3) Subject to subsection 24 (3), evidence that is determined by the court to be admissible under subsection (2) shall be considered in determining the best interests of the child under section 24.

Merits of application for custody or access

Section 24.(1) The merits of an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child, in accordance with subsections (2), (3) and (4).

Best interests of child

(2) The court shall consider all the child’s needs and circumstances, including,

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and,

(i) each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child,

(ii) other members of the child’s family who reside with the child, and

(iii) persons involved in the child’s care and upbringing;

(b) the child’s views and preferences, if they can reasonably be ascertained;

(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

(e) the plan proposed by each person applying for custody of or access to the child for the child’s care and upbringing;

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live;

(g) the ability of each person applying for custody of or access to the child to act as a parent; and

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT

Paramount purpose

1.(1)The paramount purpose of this Act is to promote the best interests, protection and well being of children.

Other purposes

(2)The additional purposes of this Act, so long as they are consistent with the best interests, protection and well being of children, are:

1. To recognize that while parents may need help in caring for their children, that help should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and, wherever possible, be provided on the basis of mutual consent.

2. To recognize that the least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child should be considered.

3. To recognize that children’s services should be provided in a manner that,

i. respects a child’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment,

ii. takes into account physical, cultural, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children,

iii. provides early assessment, planning and decision-making to achieve permanent plans for children in accordance with their best interests, and

iv. includes the participation of a child, his or her parents and relatives and the members of the child’s extended family and community, where appropriate.

4. To recognize that, wherever possible, services to children and their families should be provided in a manner that respects cultural, religious and regional differences.

Children’s Aid Society

(3) The functions of a children’s aid society are to,

(a) investigate allegations or evidence that children who are under the age of sixteen years or are in the society’s care or under its supervision may be in need of protection;

(b) protect, where necessary, children who are under the age of sixteen years or are in the society’s care or under its supervision;

(c) provide guidance, counselling and other services to families for protecting children or for the prevention of circumstances requiring the protection of children;

(d) provide care for children assigned or committed to its care under this Act;

(e) supervise children assigned to its supervision under this Act;

Prescribed standards, etc.

(4) A society shall,

(a) provide the prescribed standard of services in its performance of its functions; and

(b) follow the prescribed procedures and practices.

Offence

25.A person who knowingly,

(a) fails to furnish a report required by the Minister under subsection 5 (5);

(b) contravenes subsection 6 (2) or (3) (obstructing program supervisor, etc.); or

(c) furnishes false information in an application under this Part or in a report or return required under this Part or the regulations,

and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention or furnishing by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and is liable upon conviction to a fine of not more than $2,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 25

Child in need of protection

(2) A child is in need of protection where,

(a) the child has suffered physical harm, inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that perchild’s,

(i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or

(ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child;

(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,

(i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or

(ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child;

(c) the child has been sexually molested or sexually exploited, by the person having charge of the child or by another person where the person having charge of the child knows or should know of the possibility of sexual molestation or sexual exploitation and fails to protect the child;

(d) there is a risk that the child is likely to be sexually molested or sexually exploited as described in clause (c);

(e) the child requires medical treatment to cure, prevent or alleviate physical harm or suffering and the child’s parent or the perchild having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, the treatment;

(f) the child has suffered emotional harm, demonstrated by serious,

(i) anxiety,

(ii) depression,

(iii) withdrawal,

(iv) self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or

(v) delayed development,

and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the child results from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child;

(f.1) the child has suffered emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) and the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, services or treatment to remedy or alleviate the harm;

(g) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child;

(g.1) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) and that the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, services or treatment to prevent the harm;

(l) the child’s parent is unable to care for the child and the child is brought before the court with the parent’s consent and, where the child is twelve years of age or older, with the child’s consent, to be dealt with under this Part

Right to participate

39(6) Child’s participation A child who is the applicant under subsection 64 (4) (status review), receives notice of a proceeding under this Part or has legal representation in a proceeding is entitled to participate in the proceeding and to appeal under section 69 as if he or she were a party

61(5)Rights of child, parent and foster parent

The society having care of a child shall ensure that,

(a) the child is afforded all the rights referred to in Part V (Rights of Children); and

(b) the wishes of any parent who is entitled to access to the child and, where the child is a Crown ward, of any foster parent with whom the child has lived continuously for two years are taken into account in the society’s major decisions concerning the child. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 61 (5).

Rights of communication, etc.

103(1) A child in care has a right,

(a) to speak in private with, visit and receive visits from members of his or her family regularly, subject to subsection (2);

(b) to speak in private with and receive visits from,

(i) the child’s solicitor,

(ii) another person representing the child, including the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth,

(iii) the Ombudsman appointed under the Ombudsman Act and members of the Ombudsman’s staff, and

(iv) a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario or of the Parliament of Canada; and

(c) to send and receive written communications that are not read, examined or censored by another person,

103. (1) A service provider may impose such conditions and limitations upon persons who are visiting a young person in a place of temporary detention, of open custody or of secure custody as are necessary to ensure the safety of staff or young persons in the facility.

Suspending visits in emergencies

(2) Where a service provider has reasonable grounds to believe there are emergency circumstances within a facility that is a place of temporary detention, of open custody or of secure custody or within the community that may pose a risk to staff or young persons in the facility, the service provider may suspend visits until there are reasonable grounds to believe the emergency has been resolved and there is no longer a risk to staff or young persons in the facility

Personal liberties

104.A child in care has a right,

(a) to have reasonable privacy and possession of his or her own personal property; and

Plan of care

105.1)A child in care has a right to a plan of care designed to meet the child’s particular needs, which shall be prepared within thirty days of the child’s admission to the residential placement.

Rights to care

(2)A child in care has a right,

(a) to participate in the development of the child’s individual plan of care and in any changes made to it;

(b) to receive meals that are well-balanced, of good quality and appropriate for the child;

(c) to be provided with clothing that is of good quality and appropriate for the child, given the child’s size and activities and prevailing weather conditions;

(d) to receive medical and dental care, subject to section 106, at regular intervals and whenever required, in a community setting whenever possible;

(e) to receive an education that corresponds to the child’s aptitudes and abilities, in a community setting whenever possible; and

(f) to participate in recreational and athletic activities that are appropriate for the child’s aptitudes and interests, in a community setting whenever possible

Consents required for use of psychotropic drug

132. (1) A service provider shall not administer or permit the administration of a psychotropic drug to a child in the service provider’s care without,

(a) if the child is sixteen years of age or more, the child’s consent; or

(b) if the child is less than sixteen years of age, the consent of the child’s parent or, where the child is in a society’s lawful custody, the society’s consent.

Idem

(2) A consent referred to in subsection (1) shall identify the psychotropic drug clearly and shall specify,

(a) what condition the psychotropic drug is intended to alleviate;

(b) the range of intended dosages;

(c) the risks and possible side effects associated with the psychotropic drug, and how they vary with different dosages; and

(d) the frequency with which and the period of time during which the psychotropic drug is to be administered

Child’s views and preferences

(3) A service provider shall not administer or permit the administration of a psychotropic drug to a child in the service provider’s care who is less than sixteen years of age or lacks capacity within the meaning of section 4 without first considering the child’s views and preferences, where they can be reasonably ascertained.

334. Jean Jacque Paquette, Sheila Milne, Patricia Meehan, Pierre Bradley, Rejean Parise, Candice Polim, Josh Negusanti, Jean O’Conner, Michelle Glover, Linda Cullain and the other Defendndants denied the Plaintiff and his child emotional responsiveness to the circumstances and subjected the Plaintiff and his child to emotional abuse, physical injury, psychological trauma, including anxiety terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and parental alimentation. The Defendnants conduct was a deliberate and unlawful exercise of public function intended for their own self promotion and to injure the Plaintiff and his child; are vicariously liable in respect of torts committed against the Plaintiff’s child and, damages and violations of the Plaintiff’s and his child’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter.

??

??

BASIS FOR CLAIM SHEILA MILNE M.D.

 

335. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the previous claims against the other Defendnats and;
336. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-18 above and that all remaining elected officials and appointed board members are agents/servants to “boards/offices” and provide funding for the other Defendant to deliver government services and enforce their policy in Sudbury Ontario at the time of the false arrest, malicious prosecution, unlawful imprisonment, false child protection proceeding, medical malpractice, and infringement of the Plaintiff’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

337. That on or about December, 2006 Sheila Milne breached the applicable standard of medical care owed to the Plaintiff and his child when she negligently practiced in the area of mental health which is a specialized field of practice and not within her classification. Sheila Milne is a private company classified under General Health Practitioners, and classified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS Code 621111) which is a standard to practice General Health Medicine only and excludes the practice of Mental Health.

338. Sheila Milne deviated from the acceptable North American standard when she negligently practiced in the field of mental health and provided care, supervision and treatment of the Plaintiff’s child. This breach and deviation was the direct and proximate cause of physical injury and emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiff and his child; and is vicariously liable for damages.

339. Sheila Milne failed to properly examine, diagnose, and failed to care and treat the Plaintiff’s child in accordance with the standard of care and skill exercised by the average qualified physician.

340. That on December 6th 2005 Sheila Milne conspired with Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and MV and incorrectly diagnosed the Plaintiff’s child as having ADHD and to be of average intelligence that was a result of false information provided by both Patricia Meehan on November 23, 2005; and Jean Jacque Paquette (MV) on December 6, 2005.

341. That on or about December 6, 2005, Sheila Milne negligently prescribed 10 mg of Ritalin to the Defendants. The Children’s Aid Society reported that the Plaintiff’s child said “Ritalin makes his stomach hurt, made him feel dizzy, made him feel like a zombie and that he didn’t want to take it”. Sheila Milne deliberately denied the Plaintiff’s child emotional and medical responses to the circumstances and continued to prescribe more Ritalin at higher dosages against the wishes of the Plaintiff and his child.

342. Sheila Milne failed to report and react to the negative effects Ritalin was having on the Plaintiff’s child and failed to properly follow-up with the patient, and the failure to monitor progress and react to the Plaintiff and his child’s opposition when she continued to prescribe Ritalin in larger amounts that was not in accordance with the standard of care and skill exercised by the average qualified physician classified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS Code 621111).

343. That Sheila Milne deviated from the acceptable standard of medical care when she negligently prescribed thirty Ritalin 20mg SR and thirty PMS-methylphenidate 10mg SR. Sheila Milne noted that she had repeated communications with MV, Jean Jacque Paquette and Patricia Meehan and they all formulated a plan for obtaining Ritalin for their own self promotion.

344. Sheila Milne conspired with Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan and MV to conceal the accident suffered by the Plaintiffs’ child that was a result of Sheila Milne’s incorrect diagnosis, negligent practice of mental health and prescribing Ritalin and methylphenidate at a titration rate that was faster than normally accepted by the medical community. Jean Jacque Paquette in efforts to contain any details of the accident and his own self promotion said that he wasn’t comfortable with anyone else except the CAS to supervise access visits and continued to deny the Plaintiff a supervised visit.

345. Sheila Milne’s correspondence to the College of Physicians and Surgeons noted that all communications with MV, Jean Jacque Paquette and Patricia Meehan suddenly stopped once the prescription for Ritalin reached 40mg, the proximate time of the injury suffered by the Plaintiff’s child.

346. Sheila Milne deliberately failed to follow any clear consistent criteria and applicable standards when she negligently prescribed Ritalin and methylphenidate at a titration rate that was faster than normally accepted by the medical community which was the proximate cause of the accident suffered by the Plaintiff’s child on or about July 4, 2006.

347. That Sheila Milne failed to take any precautions regarding prescription drug abuse in the realm that parents and patients who have been prescribed Ritalin have been known to abuse or sell their tablets to others who wish to abuse the drug recreationally. Ritalin can be habit-forming when used in higher doses than recommended or for extended periods of time and that antidepressants may enhance the effects of Ritalin.

348. Sheila Milne’s negligent conduct caused the Plaintiff and his child to suffer;

a) conscious pain and suffering in the past and will suffer conscious pain and suffering into the future,

b) suffered mental anguish,

c) suffered permanent physical injuries and disfigurement, and;

d) cause the Plaintiff and his child to incur medical expenses in the past and will incur future medical expenses,

e) will be required to undergo additional medical procedures and has sustained other damages.

349. Sheila Milne incorrectly diagnosed the Plaintiff’s child and in 2009, the Plaintiff’s child was tested and found to be above average intelligence and not afflicted with ADHD.

350. Sheila Milne deliberately failed to follow any clear consistent criteria and applicable standards when she negligently prescribed Ritalin and methylphenidate at a titration rate that was faster than normally accepted by the medical community which was the proximate cause of the accident suffered by the Plaintiff’s child on or about July 4, 2006; and is vicariously liable for damages.

BASIS FOR CLAIM AGAINST BRENDA PETRYNA

351. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the previous claims against the other Defendants and;

352. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-18 above and that all remaining elected officials and appointed board members are agents/servants to “boards/offices” and provide funding for the other Defendant to deliver government services and enforce their policy in Sudbury Ontario at the time of the false arrest, malicious prosecution, unlawful imprisonment, false child protection proceeding, medical malpractice, and infringement of the Plaintiff’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

353. Brenda Petryna was employed as legal Assistant with Lacroix Forest LLP in Sudbury Ontario and failed to ensure her duties as a member of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) consisting of Lorne Sossin and James Dault were preformed without any conflict of interest, objectively, and in a professional capacity.

354. Brenda Petryna was an employee and agent of the other Defendants by association of persons to the other Defendants and has an interest in the matter distinct from an interest that arose from her function as a CFSRB board member including but not limited to the duty of loyalty owed to her employer, and to do favours for their associates the other Defendants.

355. On January 21, 2009 Brenda Petryna’s function on the HPARB shared common/special interest such as strategic planning, polling, website development, marketing and research with her employer, her private business “Petryna Advertising” and the other Defendants and their agents/servants; and is vicariously liable for damages in respect of the torts committed against the Plaintiff.

356. Brenda Petryna breached the Conflict Rules of Interest Rules and failed to avoid conflicting interests that arose from her function as a member of the HPARB, her employer, private business and the other Defendants.

357. The Plaintiff claims the Brenda Petryna breached the Conflict of Interest Rules No. 21 when she failed to recuse herself from the HPARB that presided over the Plaintiff’s complaint against Sheila Milne. Rule No. 21 states that a public office holder shall recuse herself from any discussion, decision, debate or vote on any matter in respect of which he or she would be in a conflict of interest.

358. Brenda Petryna, the HPARB, and the other Defendants conspired with the College of Physicians and Surgeons to eliminate widespread opposition to the prescription of psychotropic drugs to children by unqualified mental health professionals. Brenda Petryna and the HPARB board appointed a committee that was assisted by an”anonymous independent” opinion from an expertise in paediatric psychiatry that was obtained by the College of Physcician and Surgeons biassed investigator. The annonomous and biassed opinion vindicated Dr. Sheila Milne from any liability for negligently practicing mental health, misdiagnosing the Plaintiff’s child and causing injury to the Plaintiff’s child. The Plaintiff claims that Brenda Petryna’s failure to recuse herself as a HPARB member resulted the appointment of a committee who relied on the anonymous and biased opinion that was obtained by the biased investigator, that resulted in the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s legitimate complaint against Shelia Milne for misdiagnosing the Plaintiff’s child and negligently prescribing Ritalin at a titration rate that was faster than normally accepted.

359. The Plaintiff claims that Brenda Petryna breached the Conflict of Interest Rules No. 4 when she exercised an official power, duty or function that provided an opportunity to further her private interests or that of the other Defendants. Rule No.4 states that public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of the other Defendants. Brenda Petryna failed to recuse herself from the complaint process against Sheila Milne for negligently prescribing Ritalin at a titration rate that was quicker than normally accepted and furthered the interests of the other Defendants.

360. The Plaintiff claims the Brenda Petryna breached the Conflict of Interest Rules No. 5 that states every public office holder shall arrange his or her private affairs in a manner that will prevent the public office holder from being in a conflict of interest. Brenda Petryna failed to recuse herself from the complaint process involving Sheila Milne when she negligently prescribed Ritalin at a titration rate that was faster than normally accepted and furthered the interests of the other Defendants.

361. The Plaintiff claims the Brenda Petryna breached the Conflict of Interest Rules No. 6. (1) when she failed to recuse herself from the complaint process and appointed a committee that was assisted by an “anonymous independent” opinion from an expertise in paediatric psychiatry that was obtained by the College of Physicians and Surgeons biased investigator; and dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint against Shelia Milne for negligently prescribing Ritalin at a titration rate that was quicker than normally accepted and; furthered the interests of the other Defendants. Rule No. 6. (1) states that no public office holder shall make a decision or participate in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty or function if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision, he or she would be in a conflict of interest; and (2) No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary shall have an interest in a partnership or private corporation that is a party to a contract with a public sector entity under which the partnership or corporation receives a benefit. Brenda Petryna breached the Conflict Rules of Interest Rules and failed to avoid conflicting interests that arose from her function as a member of the Health Professions Appeal and Review, her employer, private business, Sheila Milne, and the other Defendants.

362. The Plaintiff further claims that Brenda Petryna engaged in the realm of political activity when she failed to recuse herself and remained on the HPARB board and appointed a committee that relied on an anonymous and biased opinion that was sought out by the College of Physicians and Surgeons bias investigator; that affected government policy on political issues including but not limited to;

a) the standard of medical care expected from Sudburians

b) the accountability standard of Sudbury Children’s Aid Society etc.,

363. The Plaintiff further claims that Brenda Petryna was obligated to recuse herself by virtue of the Public Service Act of Ontario s.72 that states that a public servant engages in political activity when,

(a) the public servant does anything in support of or in opposition to a federal or provincial political party;

(b) the public servant does anything in support of or in opposition to a candidate in a federal, provincial or municipal election,

364. The Plaintiff further claims that Brenda Petryna was obligated to recuse herself by virtue of the Public Service Act of Ontario s.79.(1) (d), and (e) (i) and (ii) that state a public servant shall not,

(d) engage in political activity if doing so could interfere with the performance of his or her duties as a public servant; or

(e) engage in political activity if doing so could conflict with,

(i) in the case of a public servant who works in a ministry, the interests of the Crown,

(ii) in the case of a public servant who works in a public body, the interests of the public body.

365. The Plaintiff further claims that Brenda Petryna was obligated to recuse herself by virtue the Conflict of Interest Act s.13.(1)No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary shall knowingly be a party to a contract with a public sector entity under which he or she receives a benefit, other than a contract under which he or she is entitled to pension benefits; and (2) that no minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary shall have an interest in a partnership or private corporation that is a party to a contract with a public sector entity under which the partnership or corporation receives a benefit.

366. The Plaintiff further claims that Brenda Petryna’s outside employment and private business influenced her independency, impartiality and decision to remain on the HPARB from a direct or indirect pecuniary interest shared with the other Defendants and their agents/servants and is vicariously liable for damages against the Plaintiff.

BASIS FOR CLAIM AGAINST THE HEALTH PROFFESSIONS APPEAL AND REVIEW BOARD

367. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the previous claims against the other Defendnats and;

368. The Board failed to ensure that their primary duty is to serve the community, the source of their salaries; and that the their duty includes upholding public values, such as fairness, morals and to protect the public by ensuring physicians practice according to the standard of the North American Industry Classification.

369. The Board failed to uphold the public’s standard of morals and deferred his values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servants.

370. The Board failed to properly impliment policies in accordance with the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) putting Ontarioan’s at risk of injury resulting from the medical malpractice of physicians who practice outside of their NAICS.

371. The Board disregarded recognized social and public responsibility expectation frameworks (NAICS) that were aimed at the protection of the Plaintiff and the general public from medical malpractice and injuries suffred by the Plaintif and his child.

372. The Defendnats appointed/selected Brenda Petryna (a legal assistant for Sudbury law firm with conflicting interests to the Health Proffessions Appeal and Review Board that may have in the past implimented those policies against the Plaintiff regarding his complaint against Dr. Sheila Milne, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendnats for the negligent treatment of his child.

373. The Board selected an unknown investigatoe with the College of Physcians and Surgeons who obtained an anonnanous and biassed opionion that found Sheila Milne and the other acted as prudent offficers with the intent to eliminate widespread opposition to the neglegent prescription of psychotropic drugs to children by unqualified mental helth professionals.

374. The Board and the othe Defendnats for their own self promotion deferred their values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servents when the obtained an “annomous” opinion that vindicated Dr. Sheila Milne and the othe Defendnats from any liability for neglently practicing menatl health, endangering and causing injury to the Plaintiff’s child.

375. Crimes committed by the government are harder to detect and prosecute. There are two types of offenses. Criminal offenses and Regulatory offenses. Section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act (phtography at a courthosue etc) is not a criminail offense. Regulatory offenses bearing strict liability (what a resaonable man would do) such as s.136 of the CJA is used to cpmtrol social behavior and as aresult affords the accused the defense of due dilegence. The Plaintigg claims the illegal amnd malicious persecution of the Plaintiff violated his rights that are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are vicariously liable as a result of damages suffered by the Plaintiff and his child.

BASIS FOR CLAIM AGAINST THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD SUZANNE GILBERT AND MR. OLIVER

376. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the previous claims against the other Defendnats and;

377. The Board failed to ensure that their primary duty is to serve the community, the source of their salaries; and that the their duty includes upholding public values, such as fairness, morals and to protect the public by ensuring Children’s Aid Society’s (CAS) deliver child protection services that promotes familly and the best interest of children.

378. The Board failed to uphold the public’s standard of morals and deferred his values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servants.

379. The Board failed to properly ensure that the CAS fullfilled its mandate in accordance with in the Child and Family Services Act and in the best interest of children and families.

380. The Board failed to properly ensure that the CAS followed any the clear consistent criteria and applicable provincial standards of Child Protection in Ontario as outlined in the provincial “Elgibility Spectrum” that was intended to be used to make consistent decisions about eleigibibity for child protection services.

381. The Board failed to properly ensure that the CAS followed any clear consistant criteria and applicale provincial standards of Child Protection in Ontario as outlined in the provincial the “Risk Assessment Model for Chid Protection in Ontario” that was intended to be used to ensure decisions affecting the interests and rights of children and their parents are made and subjected to procedural safeguards throughout the maliciopus child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff.

382. The Board failed to properly ensure that the CAS The Defendents were not registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and were unlawfully engaged in the practice of social work when they provided services to the Plaintif and his family. Ontario Regulation 383/00 states that “the practice of social work is to be regulated by the Ontario College of Social Work”. The regulation prevents even a former member of the college from engaging in the practice of social work once the member has ceased their membership with the college. Section 6.1.2 states: “An inactive member shall not engage in the practice of social work in Ontario.

383. The Board disregarded recognized social and public responsibility expectation frameworks (Elgibility Spectrum, Risk Assessment Model and Ontario Regulation 383/00) that were aimed at the protection of the Plaintiff and the general public from unqualified workers employoed by CAS.

384. The Defendnats appointed/selected Suzanne Gilbert, Mr. Oliver and other unknown members to the Child and Family Services Review Board that may have in the past implimented those policies against the Plaintiff regarding his complaint against Jean Jacque Paquette, CAS, Sheila Milne and the other Defendants for the negligent treatment of his child.

385. Suzanne Gilbert told the Plaintiff “the Board can never give you back you child” with the intent to furthter the other Defendants policy against the Plaintiff.

386. The Board and the othe Defendnats for their own self promotion deferred their values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servents when they acknowledge that they were powerless to act against the CAS.

387. Crimes committed by the government are harder to detect and prosecute. There are two types of offenses. Criminal offenses and Regulatory offenses. Section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act (phtography at a courthosue etc) is not a criminail offense. Regulatory offenses bearing strict liability (what a resaonable man would do) such as s.136 of the CJA is used to cpmtrol social behavior and as aresult affords the accused the defense of due dilegence. The Plaintigg claims the illegal amnd malicious persecution of the Plaintiff violated his rights that are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are vicariously liable as a result of damages suffered by the Plaintiff and his child.

BASIS FOR CLAIM AGAINST THE OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDANT REVIEW DIRECTOR GERRY MCNEILLY, SUSAN DUNN-LUNDY, KIM MCDONALD, BERNIE MUILLER

388. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the previous claims against the other Defendnats and;

389. The OIPRD (Gerry McNeilly, Susan Dunn-Lundy, Kim McDonalkd and Bernie Muiller failed to ensure that their primary duty is to serve the community, the source of their salaries; and that the their duty includes upholding public values, such as fairness, morals and to protect the public by ensuring Police deliver a properly functioning, transparant and accountable law enforcement service to the Plaintiff.

390. The OIPRD failed to uphold the public’s standard of morals and deferred their values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servants.

391. The OIPRD failed to properly ensure that the Greater Sudbury Police Service (GSPS) fullfilled its mandate in accordance with in the he Independent Police Review Act and in the best interest of the public.

392. The OIPRD failed to properly ensure that the GSPS followed any the clear consistent criteria and applicable provincial standards of the Police Service Act that was intended to be used to protect the public from misconducts and committed by Police.

393. Gerry McNeilly, Susan Dunn-Lundy, Kim McDonalkd and Bernie Muiller failed to properly ensure that the GSPS followed any clear consistant criteria and applicale provincial standards for invetsigations, criminal harrsamment and caution flags against the Plaintiff.

394. On or about May 8th, 2012 the Plaintiff alleges that the OIPRD conspired with the Minister of the Attorney General and refused to release to the Plaintiff any information that the GSPS provided during their investigation of the malicious criminal harrassment and other charges that the GSPS filed against the Plaintiff.

395. The Plaintiff claims the GSPS provided the OIPRD with illegitimate mental health opinion that were created by John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Jean Jacque Paquette, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, Robin Tiplady, Wayne Foster and the other Defendnats to malicipus enforce the policy of self promotion.

396. The OIPRD and the othe Defendnats for their own self promotion deferred their values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servents when they acknowledge that they were powerless to act against the CAS.

397. Crimes committed by the government are harder to detect and prosecute. There are two types of offenses. Criminal offenses and Regulatory offenses. Section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act (phtography at a courthosue etc) is not a criminail offense. Regulatory offenses bearing strict liability (what a resaonable man would do) such as s.136 of the CJA is used to cpmtrol social behavior and as aresult affords the accused the defense of due dilegence. The Plaintigg claims the illegal amnd malicious persecution of the Plaintiff violated his rights that are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are vicariously liable as a result of damages suffered by the Plaintiff and his child.

??

BASIS FOR CLAIM AGAINST TERESA PIRUZZA MINISTRY OF CHILD AND YOUTH SERVICES

 

398. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the previous claims against the other Defendnats and;

399. Teresa Piruzza and the Ministrery failed to ensure that their primary duty is to serve the community, the source of their salaries; and that the their duty includes upholding public values, such as fairness, morals and to protect the public by ensuring Children’s Aid Society’s (CAS) deliver child protection services that promotes familly and the best interest of children.

400. Teresa Piruzza and the Ministery failed to uphold the public’s standard of morals and deferred his values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servants.

401. Teresa Piruzza and the Ministry failed to properly ensure that the CAS fullfilled its mandate in accordance with in the Child and Family Services Act and in the best interest of children and families.

402. Teresa Piruzza and the Ministry failed to properly ensure that the CAS followed any the clear consistent criteria and applicable provincial standards of Child Protection in Ontario as outlined in the provincial “Elgibility Spectrum” that was intended to be used to make consistent decisions about eleigibibity for child protection services.

403. Teresa Piruzza and the Ministry failed to properly ensure that the CAS followed any clear consistant criteria and applicale provincial standards of Child Protection in Ontario as outlined in the provincial the “Risk Assessment Model for Chid Protection in Ontario” that was intended to be used to ensure decisions affecting the interests and rights of children and their parents are made and subjected to procedural safeguards throughout the maliciopus child protection proceeding against the Plaintiff.

404. Teresa Piruzza and the Ministery failed to properly ensure that the CAS The Defendents were not registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and were unlawfully engaged in the practice of social work when they provided services to the Plaintif and his family. Ontario Regulation 383/00 states that “the practice of social work is to be regulated by the Ontario College of Social Work”. The regulation prevents even a former member of the college from engaging in the practice of social work once the member has ceased their membership with the college. Section 6.1.2 states: “An inactive member shall not engage in the practice of social work in Ontario.

405. Teresa Piruzza and the Ministry disregarded recognized social and public responsibility expectation frameworks (Elgibility Spectrum, Risk Assessment Model and Ontario Regulation 383/00) that were aimed at the protection of the Plaintiff and the general public from unqualified workers employoed by CAS.

406. The Defendnats appointed/selected Suzanne Gilbert, Mr. Oliver and other unknown members to the Child and Family Services Review Board that may have in the past implimented those policies against the Plaintiff regarding his complaint against Jean Jacque Paquette, CAS, Sheila Milne and the other Defendants for the negligent treatment of his child.

407. Suzanne Gilbert told the Plaintiff “Teresa Piruzza can never give you back you child” with the intent to furthter the other Defendants policy against the Plaintiff.

408. Teresa Piruzza and the othe Defendnats for their own self promotion deferred their values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servents when they acknowledge that they were powerless to act against the CAS.

Crimes committed by the government are harder to detect and prosecute. There are two types of offenses. Criminal offenses and Regulatory offenses. Section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act (phtography at a courthosue etc) is not a criminail offense. Regulatory offenses bearing strict liability (what a resaonable man would do) such as s.136 of the CJA is used to control social behavior and as aresult affords the accused the defense of due dilegence. The Plaintiff claims the illegal amnd malicious persecution of the Plaintiff violated his rights that are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are vicariously liable as a result of damages suffered by the Plaintiff and his child.

??

BASIS FOR CLAIM AGAINST DEB MATHEWS MINISTRY OF HEALTH

 

409. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the previous claims against the other Defendnats and;

410. The Plaintiff claims that MPP Care Deb Mathews London North Centre and Ministry of Health and Longterm has a long history with the Ontario Children Aid Societies (Miistery of Child and youth services) and Health Service providers (Ministery of Health); and the other Defendants.

411. Deb Mathews and the Ministery failed to ensure that their primary duty is to serve the community, the source of their salaries; and that the their duty includes upholding public values, such as fairness, morals and to protect the public by ensuring physicians practice according to the standard of the North American Industry Classification.
412. Deb Mathews and the Ministery failed to uphold the public’s standard of morals and deferred his values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servants.

413. Deb Mathews and the Ministery failed to properly impliment policies in accordance with the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) putting Ontarioan’s at risk of injury resulting from the medical malpractice of physicians who practice outside of their NAICS.

414. Deb Mathews and the Ministery disregarded recognized social and public responsibility expectation frameworks (NAICS) that were aimed at the protection of the Plaintiff and the general public from medical malpractice and injuries suffred by the Plaintif and his child.

415. The Defendnats appointed/selected Brenda Petryna (a legal assistant for Sudbury law firm with conflicting interests) to the Health Proffessions Appeal and Review Board that may have in the past implimented those policies against the Plaintiff regarding his complaint against Dr. Sheila Milne, Jean Jacque Paquette and the other Defendnats for the negligent treatment of his child.

416. Deb Mathews and Teresa Piruzza and the other Defendnats selected an unknown investigatoe with the College of Physcians and Surgeons who obtained an anonnanous and biassed opionion that found Sheila Milne and the other acted as prudent offficers with the intent to eliminate widespread opposition to the neglegent prescription of psychotropic drugs to children by unqualified mental helth professionals.

417. Deb Mathews and the othe Defendnats for their own self promotion deferred their values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servents when the obtained an “annomous” opinion that vindicated Dr. Sheila Milne and the othe Defendnats from any liability for neglently practicing menatl health, endangering and causing injury to the Plaintiff’s child.

418. The Minisitry willfully permitted the Defendnats to disregard recognized social and public responsibility expectation frameworks (Elgibility Spectrum, Risk Assessment Model and Ontario Regulation 383/00) that were aimed at the protection of the Plaintiff and the general public from unqualified workers employoed by CAS.

419. The Defendnats appointed/selected Suzanne Gilbert, Mr. Oliver and other unknown members to the Child and Family Services Review Board that may have in the past implimented those policies against the Plaintiff regarding his complaint against Jean Jacque Paquette, CAS, Sheila Milne and the other Defendants for the negligent treatment of his child.

420. Suzanne Gilbert told the Plaintiff “Teresa Piruzza can never give you back you child” with the intent to furthter the other Defendants policy against the Plaintiff.

421. Crimes committed by the government are harder to detect and prosecute. There are two types of offenses. Criminal offenses and Regulatory offenses. Section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act (phtography at a courthosue etc) is not a criminail offense. Regulatory offenses bearing strict liability (what a resaonable man would do) such as s.136 of the CJA is used to cpmtrol social behavior and as aresult affords the accused the defense of due dilegence. The Plaintigg claims the illegal amnd malicious persecution of the Plaintiff violated his rights that are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are vicariously liable as a result of damages suffered by the Plaintiff and his child.

??

BASIS FOR CLAIM AGAINST SUDBURY MPP RICK BARTOLUCCI VICE CHAIR STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

 

422. The Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein all of the previous claims against the other Defendnats and;

423. The Plaintiff claims that Sudbury MPP Rick Bartolucci has a long history with Dianne Fisher aka Dianne Verhagen aka by other various aliases and MV as a result of their own history with the Sudbury Mental Health Association, Greaer Sudbury Police, the Children’s Aid Society, Jean Jacque Paquette, John Luczak, Kedrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Robin Tiplady, Craig Maki, Craig Moxam, the Police Association, and the other Defendants.

424. The Plaintiff claims that Sudbury MPP Rick Bartolucci the othe Defendnats and or their agents/servents had ultimate control over government policies that were exercised during the administration of their authority and; failed to ensure that their primary duty is to serve the community, the source of their salaries; and that the their duty includes upholding public values, such as fairness, morals and transparant, accountable, and properly function law enforcement, child protection, and medical malpractice safeguards.

425. On or about January 2005, the Plaintiff contacted Sudbury MPP Rick Bartolucci who told the Plaintiff to “go and protest in front of his office”.The Defendants conduct was a deliberate abusive exercise of public function intended for the promotion of Jean Jacque Paquette, Patricia Meehan, John Luczak, Kendrick Abbott, Susan Bruce, Craig Moxam, Craig Maki, Robin Tiplady and the other Defendants and to further harass the Plaintiff.

a. failed to uphold the public’s standard of morals and deferred his values and judgeement to a consensus of self interest policy in favour of the other Defendants and their agents/servents; failed to ensure that their primary duty is to serve the community, the source of their salaries; and that the their duty includes policies that promote upholding public values, such as fairness, morals and transparancy, accountablity, and a properly function law enforcement, child protection and healthcare system.

426. Rick Bartolucci MPP for Sudbury Ontario the other Defefendnats and or their agents/servents deliberately appointed Gerry McNeilly, Susan Dunn-Lundy, Kim McDonalkd and Bernie Muiller to the Ontario Indpendant Police Review Director’s office.to impliment and eliminate widespread opposition to those policies and;

427. Rick Bartolucci MPP for Sudbury Ontario the other Defefendnats and or their agents/servents deliberately appointed Suzanne Gilbert to the Child and family Services Review Board to impliment and eliminate widespread opposition to those policies and; failed to prevent CAS from employing unqualified workers tat are not registered to the Ontario College of Social Work and allowed the unregistered workeres to illegally practice social work in Ontario and exploit families.

428. Rick Bartolucci MPP for Sudbury Ontario the other Defefendnats and or their agents/servents deliberately appointed Brenda Petryna Health Proffessions Appeal and Review Board to impliment and eliminate widespread opposition to those policies and; failed to upholdpublic values, such as fairness, morals and to protect the public by ensuring physicians practice according to the standard of the North American Industry Classification System.

429. failed to recognized social and public responsibility governance frameworks recomendations made by the Provincila Advocate for Child and Youth that are aimed at the protection of the Plaintiff and the general public from civil rights violations committed by Ontario’s Children’s Aid Societies, and failed to ensure the implementation and fulfillment of the requirements of such governance frameworks;

430. failed to recognized social and OIPRD public responsibility governance frameworks recommendations made by the Ontario Ombudsman that are aimed at the protection of the Plaintiff and the general public from false arrest, wrongful imprisonment and malicous child protection proceedings, medical malpractice and civil rights violations against the Plaintiff by the Defendants.

431. The Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendants appointment of a Financial Accountability Officer in lieu of the Ombudsman denies Ontarians Ombudsman oversight of MUSH sector services and allows service providers to continue violating citizen’s civil rights and liberties constitutes a similar tactic of past actions taken by the Defendants, agents or affiliates in previous attempts to deny Ontarians Ombudsman oversight.The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that,

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.

(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; and that:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed ofthat right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful. 11. Any persons charged with an offence has the right (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; (b) to be tried within a reasonable time; (e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause; (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations; (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. 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. Crimes committed by the government are harder to detect and prosecute. There are two types of offenses. Criminal offenses and Regulatory offenses. Section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act (phtography at a courthosue etc) is not a criminail offense. Regulatory offenses bearing strict liability (what a resaonable man would do) such as s.136 of the CJA is used to cpmtrol social behavior and as a result affords the accused the defense of due dilegence. The Plaintiff claims the illegal and malicious persecution of the Plaintiff and malicious child protection hearing violated his rights that are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are vicariously liable as a result of damages suffered by the Plaintiff and his child.

DAMAGES

432. The Plaintiff has suffered damages, including:

a. damages for loss of liberty, physical, emotional, and mental distress, and indignity;

b. damages for loss to the Plaintiff’s reputation;

c. aggravated damages for the insulting, high handed, malicious and oppressive conduct of the Defendants;

d. punitive damages for the Defendants’ abuse of authority for a malicious purpose with wilful and/grossly negligent disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights;

e. punitive and aggravated damages for the breach of the applicable standard of medical care by the Defendants, the Plaintiff: 1) suffered conscious pain and suffering in the past and will suffer conscious pain and suffering into the future, 2) incurred medical expenses in the past and will incur future medical expenses, 3) suffered mental anguish, 4) suffered permanent physical injuries

f. special damages for the Plaintiff’s loss of time, interruption in business and routine of life and for expenses relating to malicious criminal and child protection proceedings.
REMEDY SOUGHT

??

433. Despite the irrefutable lack of evidence and lack of injuries documented by Police and Crown against MV, the Defendants conducted sham criminal investigations laying bogus criminal charges against the Plaintiff dispite evidence to the contrary and proceeded to maliciously prosecute the Plaintiff using falsifieid evidence and altered transcripts. The Plaintiff claims damages in respect of the tortious conduct of the Defendants.

 

434. The Plaintiff further claims damages pursuant to .s. 24(1) and (2) of Charter of Rights and Freedoms that state; 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. (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” for the breach of the Plaintiff’s rights under s. 2, s. 7, s. 8, s .9, s. 10, s. 11, s. 12, s. 15, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

435. The Plaintiff states that the action of the Defendants support a claim for punitive, general  and special damages as these facts demonstarate the pervasive and malicious operation of the GSPS, Crown Attorney, CAS and the other Defendants against the Plaintiff resulting negligent investigation, false arrest, malicous prosection, wrongful imprisonment, misfeasance in public office, conspiracy, malicious child protection proceeding, invasion of pravacy, tresspass, neglegence, medical malpractice and tortious interference of the Plaintiff.

436. The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried before a jury at Toronto Ontario.

 

Date: ………………………………….    Plaintiff: ……………………………….