ONSC:DC 107/22 - Scheduling Concerns and D2 Request


"This conference is being recorded."

Unfortunately, I may have misapprehended the scheduling issues and despite having made explicit request in my email dated July 28th, 2022 that I be accommodated and "..a teleconference be arranged with an Administrative Judge or designate for directions respecting what materials are required and how they are to be provided to the Court." I believe that this is specifically provided for by the Notice to The Profession on the website at:

I am providing these Authorities with a somewhat loose hope that they will suffice. In any event, I'm requesting a teleconference be arranged with an Administrative Judge or designate for directions respecting what materials are required and how they are to be provided to the Court. This is per D4.2 "Submitting Electronic Documents for Hearings" of the Notice to the Profession (Divisional Court) effective April 19, 2022.

I had previously in our 1st Judicial Case Conference (Mar23) been informed that the schedule would be malleable to ensure procedural fairness by, I believe, Justice Corbett. This was reiterated by Justice Copeland at our 2nd CC (Apr01) and I made the express request to Ms Badwal on July 20th, in a phone call opened with:

  • "Hello. I'm calling regarding the scheduling of a motion scheduling a motion before a single Judge in 107/22."
  • ..
  • "Okay one sec. Sorry because what I saw was on your Consolidated Practice Directions. It says "in the case of appeals to a Single Judge or any other other motions incidental to Appeals or Applications which this is Counsel that (I'm Self Counsel) Counsel should contact Divisional Court Office by telephone at this number (416-327-6202) to arrange a Hearing Date."
  • ..
  • "I just want to schedule the Hearing Date and then I will provide the further material incidental to it because the.. this is regarding scheduling and the fact that the the outlined timetable is unreasonable, especially considering that the Hearing is not until February 22nd.."
  • ..
  • "Um.. the okay.. mostly there was the Motion on.. That's the Motion coming up on August 12th. But that's actually, although maybe if I could also schedule this.. because there's a scheduling issue, because I disagree with the timetable being that is agreed on by all parties because it doesn't match up with, It doesn't allow me appropriate time to make competent Appeal to the case because the Appeal's being heard on February 22nd and by your.. by the schedule agreed on by the Parties or mandated by the Parties, it looks like they want it wrapped up by October. So I'm just trying to get some breathing room, so I can make a cogent and rational argument when it comes up.. because I haven't even gotten the Sherman Estate Order in place yet and that's problematic because I'm uncomfortable making further processes without safeguarding my wife and I's safety in the community."

Ms Badwal responded with:

  • "Okay. I see. So actually I have this currently on for the week of August the 8th because this is going to be done in a writing. So you're asking for it to be pushed back?"

I clarified that I was pretty sure I'd be okay with the current schedule for the modified Sherman Estates publication ban, but that I needed more time for the actual Appeal on Feb22. You'll note that I explicitly requested, I think, 2-3 days for the SPPA hearing, but was denied this appropriate and just accommodation I informed the Court I required in order to make competent my Process under the SPPA. This issue touches on the very bedrock of Personal Autonomy and Freedom of Conscience.

As explored by Jaclyn Greenberg in the Dec 22, 2013 edition of the Ottawa Law Review:

  • As stated by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Malette v Shulman,
    1. "[t]he right to determine what shall be done with one's own body is a fundamental right in our society. The concepts inherent in this right are the bedrock upon which the principles of self-determination and individual autonomy are based."
    2. The challenge, however, is in realizing the limitations of this right in the context of consumers whose well-being is at great risk. Here, I characterize "at great risk", as when a consumer satisfies the criteria, outlined in the Mental Health Act (MHA), to be committed to a hospital involuntarily. That is, he or she is found to be suffering from a mental condition that led him or her to be a danger to himself or herself or others.
    3. When mental health consumers satisfy the criteria to be involuntarily hospitalized, the right to refuse treatment takes on a new dimension.
  • ..
  • First, history shows that unfettered professional discretion undermines a consumer's autonomy, dignity and integrity. Second, without the right to review, other rights are impossible to assert as the human rights- based jurisprudence shows. Finally, in the case of Ontario's legislation, the right to review is the most efficient means to ensure that the rationale for limiting a consumer's rights can be articulated and justified according to objective criteria.

As I explored in my email to Counsel for Medallion Corporation dated May 3rd, 2021 and mirrored on our sites at Scope and Meaning or Rosa Parks and Facial Nudity there has been a gross abuse of powers, by treating an 565 Sherbourne Street as it were designated a “intensive support residence”, "supported group living residence”, “home for special care”, “long-term care home”, “psychiatric facility”, “correctional institution”, in any such similar form a designate “facility.”

As I informed Justice Corbett on March 23rd, I really require 2-3 days to get to the heart of this Brown Shirt conundrum and how our rights are being trampled by short-sighted Corporations. For certainty, the appropriate schedule which accommodates my ability to make full answer and defence for our Appeal from and Response to the egregious overreach is as follows:

  • Nov 14        Moving parties’ materials (except factum)
  • Nov 25        Responding Landlord’s materials, LTB materials (except factum)
  • Dec 08        Moving parties’ factum
  • Jan 07        Responding Landlord’s factum
  • Jan 21        LTB factum
  • Feb 22        Panel Appeal

In the interests of compromise, I can try to squeeze it in a full day on Feb22, but I'll need to be provided the option to spill over half a day for my closing (I'm kinda long-winded and overly complete). Thank-you, and have a good weekend.

Please confirm receipt of this message.

Chad, Chief Disinformation Officer
Covfefe Bakery + Cafe
Internet Security, Operations and Intelligence
Tel: +1 716-608-3531