A Systemic Barrier to Justice
Supreme Court of Canada: ONE YEAR DELAY
James vs York University Docket Number
October 3, 2019
Dear Supreme Court of Canada,
The quality of any society is judged on the delivery of its social justice. On the delivery of fairness and equality for all its citizens.
As guardians of Canadian Justice representing Canada's most esteemed institution I express to you my profound disappointment and disgust at your ongoing strategy of ignoring the Paul J James human rights discrimination claim. You have failed Paul J James. Those persons associated with this matter on my behalf and millions of others who would be affected positively from social justice being rightly served.
You have no excuse. No explanation which would warrant merit. Rather, you are wholly deficient in your handling of this matter.
Once again attached is the 78 page Affidavit sent to you in the summer of 2016 along with the ten page memorandum of argument. To use legalese the social injustice is extreme, plain and obvious. It is so patently unreasonable for any right minded Canadian and/or Global citizen to conclude any other way.
May I remind you also you are in receipt of a three part letter of appeal sent to you over the past 5 months. Over 300 pages detailed in its accuracy - at a cost of humiliating self sacrifice - on a social health phenomenon of such importance.
ONE YEAR DELAY
If a citizen files a human rights discrimination claim outside the one year delay for filing a claim, the requirement of the human rights tribunal and Canadian law in 2012 was for a reasonable explanation to be submitted through medical evidence.
Linda Perlis wrote two letters as medical evidence on my behalf which passed the threshold of reasonableness by an almighty chasm. To conclude otherwise is to act in bad faith. To be corrupt of the reality. The case law requirement cited by Lisa Constantine, Respondent Counsel, was for the evidence to indicate the Applicant could not file a human rights claim during the one year delay.period.
The HRTO adjudicator on the James vs York University file through egregious bad faith proceeded to manipulate the requirement of medical evidence as having to be explicit. Common sense even to the layperson is that medical evidence cannot be written explicitly on psychological matters under the threshold of providing a reasonable explanation.
For example, Paul J James has given indications psychologically that he is about to set himself a light as a social protest towards the extreme social injustices he has and continues to face. No ethical, competent written assessment could write explicitly that I am going to do any such thing. Similarly, there is not a blood test which would have explicitly concluded Robin Williams was going to commit the act of suicide when he did. The best one can do is to indicate.
Yet Paul Aterman the HRTO adjudicator manipulated at the Preliminary stage of proceedings the case law to require explicit. It was an egregious act of impropriety which lit the fuse to dreadful harm and injustice. The Canadian establishment including the Supreme Court of Canada have protected this reality ever since. And you have done so to protect York University and the Power and wealth of the system who are reliant on the ONE YEAR DELAY serving its purpose as a systemic barrier. A controlling mechanism protecting organizations from reduced profitability at the expense of the ruination of too many Canadian lives.
Had the HRTO adjudicator ruled in good faith and without impropriety then the matter would have proceeded to an HRTO hearing upon which York University's LIE would have been verbally exposed on public record as well as it already is in written form.
There is simply no out for the York University, the Canadian Judiciary including the honourable court on such facts of the matter. The damage afforded one Canadian citizen has been as colossal. Psychological terror and humiliation. I request you review and correct immediately for the health and well being of all Canadian citizens
Respectfully,
Paul J James
