Dear Chief Justice Richard Wagner
To: The Right Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Richard Wagner
Honourable Supreme Court of Canada Justices
Supreme Court of Canada Registrar
Preface
The matter addressed here concerns the (Paul J) James vs York University human rights discrimination claim. Docket Number (#36795).
Attached. Original 2016 Supreme Court of Canada Submitted Affidavit Requesting a Reconsideration of Dismissed Leave to Appeal and the accompanying Ten Page Memorandum of Argument.
The exact time of the Paul J James electronic delivery of this correspondence/message - via the Registrar's Office at the Supreme Court of Canada- has triggered hunger strike protest number twelve today May 16, 2019, at 9.00 pm.
In light of the hunger strike protest this document has been prepared and is now disseminated to many throughout Canada in part as an antidote for any posthumous scapegoating statements made by oppressors of social justice in the event of my ultimate reluctant demise.
Please note this correspondence will simultaneously be uploaded onto the following website link.
Introduction Statements
The first seven words of the subsequent paragraph are "borrowed" from Elizabeth May - leader of Canada's Green Party - in her recent statement regarding Climate Change and Canadian politicians greed and hypocrisy in neglecting their responsibilities to the future well being of Canadian generations. I leverage the words onto the other catastrophe of humanity within Canada. The total inadequacy of Canada's approach towards: mental health in the form of substance disabilities. The complete failure of the Canadian system in this regard guarantees to engulf Canada into stigmatized chaos and turmoil - more than already exists - without an immediate change in course of action. Dilapidated Canadian institutional structures, the decay of which, originate primarily from an immature, depraved commitment to "Bad Machiavellian Politics" at every level of Canadian society has lead to complacency, laziness, irresponsibility and incompetence when dealing with persons in need of non-discriminatory, non-prejudicial support.
Even more disturbing, the resulting quagmire of an inadequate system, is currently being stoked and fueled by an inadequate Canadian Judicial system and process which turns a blind eye to social injustices far too often and refuses to hold those accountable for discrimination and prejudicial practices based on metal disability which further conditions, socializes and permits non-affected Canadian citizens to ostracize, isolate and harm those in need of unconditioned realistic support which first and foremost must be a persons right to be employed. This seemingly impenetrable institutional ethos of non-accountability has been killing Canadian citizens on a grand scale for decades. The Paul J James human rights discrimination claim before the Canadian courts is a disgraceful representation of just how inept, inhumane, corrupt and depraved the Canadian system can be in regards to a persons mental disability establishing such persons currently have no enforceable human rights protection even against such incontestable overt discrimination - which has been the case in the James vs York University matter, at every level of the system including the Canadian Judiciary.
"History will judge 'reckless, even criminal' politicians, humanitarians, media, the Canadian Judicial process and other Canadian citizens and organizations who have unashamedly and irresponsibly ignored/hidden/corrupted the truth of the James vs York University human rights discrimination claim before the Canadian courts.
Once fully transparent to the Canadian public, the truth in the Paul J James matter, substantiates unequivocally the unlawful systemic STIGMATIZATION which can be delivered onto those whom suffer the misfortune and indignity of having an exposed diagnosed substance/mental disability.
This total disregard of a persons human right to be treated equally and fairly and with dignity and respect irrespective of any known mental disability - as succinctly illuminated in the Paul J James matter - delivers devastating consequences not only onto the victim but in turn, onto every layer of Canadian society.
If substance disability discrimination and prejudice are permitted to continue unabated the unlawful approach will continue to deliver escalated economic and social carnage and appalling, ongoing preventable human suffering. As if, it is not bad enough already.
James vs York University Human Rights Discrimination Claim
If the James vs York University human rights discrimination claim is not permitted to be expeditiously returned to the Supreme Court of Canada to be reviewed by one Supreme Court Justice it will confirm the Canadian Judicial process has been and can be intentionally and unlawfully rigged from start to finish in order to deliberately prevent fair access to social justice with complete impunity.
Irrespective, to date, the "intentional rigged process" in the James vs York University human rights discrimination claim can be exposed as being facilitated by the blanketed collusion and corruptness of the organizations and persons highlighted at the conclusion of this document through straightforward "good faith analysis" of the evidence and documents before the Canadian judicial system and through the website www.confrontingthestigmaofdrugaddiction.com by law enforcement agencies; watchdog organizations and/or international governing bodies.
The James vs York University human rights discrimination claim should be permitted to go back to the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis the honorable Court erred in its procedures while administering/adjudicating the James vs York University file at the time it was "live" at the honorable court in 2016.
With consideration of the courts procedural errors no Canadian citizen can be assured that the James vs York University file was treated equally and fairly through the honorable courts process which is an infringement of Section 15 of the the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it relates to the human rights of Paul J James.
While the oppressors of justice could try to claim the file may have been adjudicated equally and fairly, the honorable court unequivocally cannot, under their own procedural guidelines, provide the necessary evidence to the Canadian public which would substantiate the file was administered and adjudicated responsibly, competently, equally and fairly.
On the contrary as this correspondence and the attached Paul J James 2016 Affidavit to the Supreme Court of Canada establishes the honourable court are in fact completely delinquent in responsibility, competence, equality and fairness as it relates to the Paul J James file Docket Number (#36795).
Past Commitment of the Former Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Beverley McLachlin.
In the past the former Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, on public record, has stated, to paraphrase:
"The honorable court does in fact make mistakes. We are not perfect. And when we are confronted with errors of injustice committed by the honourable we seek to expeditiously correct them"
It is on this basis that the James vs York University file must be permitted to be returned and reviewed by one Supreme Court of Canada Justice. Failure to provide this channel of review in the James vs York University human rights discrimination claim based on mental disability will relegate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada and the whole Canadian Judicial process as being redundant and futile of the honorable courts procedures in administering, adjudicating and applying the rule of law to ALL Canadian citizens.
When the Paul J James file is reviewed by one Supreme Court justice a hearing/ruling will be granted/delivered and at the hearing a ruling will be delivered in favor of social justice to Paul J James because it will be discovered that for over a decade the three time inductee into the Canadian Soccer Hall of Fame has been egregiously abused of his human right to be treated equally and fairly and in fact he has been abused of any human right at every level of Canadian society.
The honourable court will deliver the sternest of rebukes to the HRTO, Lower courts, York University, the Toronto Star, National Post and CBC and other persons for the appalling treatment and abuse of a Canadian citizen deliberately denying access to social justice for so long and exposing that citizen to such dreadful abuse, ruining a career and lifetime passion in the process which collectively, has been the epitome of psychological cruelty.
Supreme Court of Canada Administrative Certifying Error
The honourable court errors committed against the James vs York University human rights discrimination claim are not complicated when one reviews the administration and adjudication of the file at the Supreme Court of Canada.
Taken from attached (submitted) Supreme Court of Canada Affidavit: "On January 4 (electronic copy) and 5 (hard copy) 2016, I submitted my leave for appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada. In doing so my partner Ashley and I requested, through phone calls to the administrative branch of the court if my Application was deficient in any way. The court (Pascal) unfairly stated no and announced on January 5, 2016 through SCC website that certificate had been approved followed by written confirmation that application had been completed on January 6/7, 2016 as communicated via the SCC website. Two months later, I was informed by the court (Pascal) that my application was in fact deficient, delaying the application process by two months which now required an amended application and a motion for an extension of time. In providing further humiliating documentation to the court, the privacy on my health was once again infringed upon as a consequent of the inappropriate actions of the administrative branch of the SCC who knew of the applications deficiency on January 4/5 because the error of applying for leave from the Divisional Court of Ontario instead of the Ontario Court of Appeal appeared in the incorrect writing of six capitalized words not only on the front cover of my submitted documents but also on pages 1, 3, 7 and 9. It is patently unreasonable for any Canadian citizen to conclude this was merely an innocent error by the administration of the SCC.
Supreme Court of Canada Case Summary Prejudicial Error
Monday May 9, 2016 a Supreme Court Case Summary on the James vs York University human rights discrimination claim was delivered to the world three days prior to the Leave to Appeal judgement. It included the following:
"At the completion of his soccer career, Mr. James was employed as the master soccer coach of the York University Varsity Soccer Program. Mr. James was a distinguished soccer player who represented Canada at the World Cup and the Olympics. Depression and other physical and medical consequences of an addiction to crack cocaine resulted in him resigning from his position at York University in December 2009".
The second bold sentence is a false, prejudicial, discriminatory closed statement with no room for interpretation delivered originally by Justice Edwards at the Divisional Court of Ontario in his June 2015 decision rationale which did not match the evidence before the court. The false sentence, also, unlawfully, ruled on the merits of the case which was not before the court which in turn triggered the National Post newspaper to write as its headline three days after Justice Edwards' bad faith decision rationale the following appalling stigmatized defamation which corruptly absolved York University and the Human Rights Tribunal process of responsibility and accountability.
“Former Olympian who resigned from York University over crack use, fails to prove he was discriminated against.”
What the evidence before the honourable and lowers courts clearly outlined was that Paul J James among incremental poor treatment including excommunication, resigned at York University because he was requested to formalize his resignation by the Athletic Director of Sport York who knew of his mental disability and previous request for leave of absence because he had not been "well for some time". The Athletic Director who had informed the Employee Wellness Office at York University of Paul J James' leave of absence and requested a doctors note from Paul himself - had a responsibility to investigate the Paul J James circumstance in the fall of 2009 and provide support and accommodation. York University unequivocally failed in their responsibility to an employee whom had been highly successful, professional and pedigreed for their institution over a six year period - the architect of unprecedented success. In addition to the absurdity of Justices Edwards unlawful false statement ruling on the merits of the case York University had lied in their submissions, the AD stating she thought Paul J James was just dealing with personal matters, denying she knew anything of my mental disability and poor health.
The Case Summary statement in question communicated to anyone that read the not open to interpretation sentence the file was going to be dismissed because the false ruling on the merits of case stated unequivocally to the reader that no discrimination took place at York University. This was egregiously prejudicial, unfair and unequal treatment. It was also an obstruction of justice.
Supreme Court of Canada Justices have unfettered licence to make their decisions on whether to grant or dismiss claims before the court without public explanations. Rightly or wrongly the guideline is the same for all files before the court.
The sentence in question from the Case Summary however, communicated to the world why the James vs York University file was going to be dismissed which was false. Meanwhile no other files were treated in the same prejudicial manner where a court explanation was communicated and disseminated as to why it was dismissed or granted appeal. It was an egregious error. It was an egregiously false sentence based on the evidence before the court.
On Tuesday May 17, 2016 I received the following email from the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada:
Good afternoon, This will confirm that the case summary has been revised to remove the sentence to which you have objected. The summary is available on our website. I can confirm that the summary was not sent to the judges. As we previously advised you, these summaries are prepared as public information only. You are welcome to consult any documents in the case file, but copies of any memorandums or notes prepared for judges for use in their deliberations are not public.
The Case Summary however, was revised to remove the sentence not just because I objected to it but because it was wrong prejudicial and discriminatory. It was removed after the fact and had already communicated to the world why the file was dismissed.
On Thursday May 19, 2016 after further investigation the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada they, again replied:
"I can only repeat the information given to you previously. Memorandums or notes prepared for judges for use in their deliberations in relation to judicial proceedings before the Court are not public. Accordingly, we cannot comment further".
Knowing the same SCC Law Branch who prepared the Case Summary are the same SCC Law Branch/Lawyer who provide Supreme Court justices memorandums and notes including their recommendations on whether to dismiss and/or grant claims before the court it is reasonable to conclude the prejudicial sentence would have been included in their communications to the Supreme Court Chief Justice at the time Beverley McLachlin who was selected to adjudicate the James vs York University file.
Whether the Supreme Court of Canada Law Branch did or did not include the prejudicial sentence or recommend for the file to be dismissed - the courts procedural guidelines do not permit them to communicate to the Canadian Public the answer. On this basis the Canadian public can never be assured whether the James vs York University claim was adjudicated equally and fairly based on their errors.
On the contrary based on the evidence which is available to the Canadian public it is clear the administration were incompetent in their handling of the James vs York University file which denied Paul J James equal fair treatment while absolving York University and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario of responsibility and accountability for their appalling behaviour.
The only reasonable way for the Canadian Public to be assured Paul J James and the James vs York University file was adjudicated fairly is for the claim to be reviewed by one Supreme Court of Canada Justice which is the right of any Canadian citizen before the honourable court.
Yours respectfully,
Paul J James
Below is a list of Oppressors of Social Justice in the James vs York University Human Rights discrimination matter which has deliberately devastated a soccer career and life of a Canadian citizen. Paul J James. A three time Inductee into the Canadian Soccer Hall of Fame. A former Canadian World Cup soccer player and coach having represented the Maple Leaf over 100 times collectively as a coach and/or player.
York University
Rhonda Lenton
Mahmoud Shoukri
Lorna Marsden
Rick Waugh
Harriet Lewis
Pat Murray
Jenn Myers
Sheila Forshaw
Gillian McCullough
Bree Carr-Harris
Jamie Teixeira
McCarthy Tetrault
Malcolm Mercer
Lisa Constantine
Human Rights Tribunal of Canada
Paul Aterman
Brian Blumenthal
Divisional Court of Ontario
Justice Edwards
Ontario Court of Appeal
Eileen Gillese
Supreme Court of Canada
Law Branch
Pasquale
Registrar
Former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin
National Post
Tristan Hopper
Anne Marie Owens
Toronto Star
Mary Ormsby
Bob Rae
CBC
Alexandra Sienkiewicz
Canadian Press
Stephen Meurice
Colin Perkel
Canada Soccer
Peter Montopoli
Pat Santini
Victor Montagliani
Nick Bontis
Steven Reed Liberal Party of Canada
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
Adam Vaughan
James Maloney
Deborah Schulte
Other Contributors (not limited too):
Barry Swadron (Osgoode Hall)
Randy Ragan (Osgoode Hall)
Richard Elliot (Osgoode Hall)
Tess Sheldon (ARCH)
Scott Weinberg
JP Savage
Jason Bogle
Andrew Scheer (Conservative Party of Canada)
Jagmeet Singh (NDP)
Elizabeth May (Green Party of Canada)
