NOFEDIT
That The Evil Trio has engaged in fraudulent concealment (contrary to s. 341 of Criminal Code) of their disregard and contempt for the essential and integral element in decision making by those who wield statutory authority over members of the public generally (and those defined as Mentally Incapable Vulnerable Adults (MIVA) specifically where the rules of engagement differ substantially) herein referred to as Slattery v. Canada NOFEDIT principle (which can be viewed as a diligent application of Oakes Test when one party is the State or the population such that Charter is engaged) that mandates a delicate and thoughtful balancing the rights of parties when exercising adjudicative functions with neutrality, objectivity, fairness, empathy, diligence, integrity and thoroughness or thoughtfulness (NOFEDIT) (the element of empathy favours the more vulnerable who tend to fall prey to the adjudicative delict of oppressive omissions due to their vulnerable life circumstances and tend to be vulnerable to become victims of hostile fury and vindictiveness of the decision makers due to their being anomalous and abnormal.)
The overarching legal principles of a “democratically just and fair” balancing of the rights of the parties with neutrality, objectivity, fairness, empathy, diligence, integrity and thoroughness or thoughtfulness in conflict or dispute that an unbiased objective and well-informed adjudicator or jurist is tasked with the disposition of without even creating an impression or illusion of being favorable to one or the other conflicting parties while addressing the procedural fairness as per the doctrine of legitimate expectation and substantive fairness of the outcome as stated by Nadon J., (as he then was) in Slattery v. Canada and approvingly cited by several appellate tribunals like the unanimous Federal Court of Appeal per Pelletier J. A. Stone & Rothstein JJ.A. concurring in Hutchinson v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) (C.A.), 2003 FCA 133 [2003] 4 FC 580, @https://canlii.ca/t/4h75; and per Macfarland J.: (Orally) for the three judge panel of review court Ontario Superior Court Divisional Court in Campbell v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 ONSCDC 7716 @https://canlii.ca/t/1gcmw
[7] As to the estoppel argument raised, we are all of the view that the Commission cannot be bound in any way by the finding of the Board of Referees under the Employment Insurance Act. In our view, the issues before the Commission and the Board of Referees were entirely different. We are not persuaded that the record here demonstrates bias on the part of the Commission. As was noted in the case Slattery v. Canada (Human Rights Commission) at para. 55 thereof:
“In determining the degree of thoroughness of investigation required to be in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness, one must be mindful of the interests that are being balanced: the complainant’s and respondent’s interests in procedural fairness and the CHRC’s interests in maintaining a workable and administratively effective system.”
And further at para. 56:
“Deference must be given to administrative decision-makers to assess the probative value of evidence and to decide to further investigate or not to further investigate accordingly. It should only be where unreasonable omissions are made, for example where an investigator failed to investigate obviously crucial evidence, that judicial review is warranted. Such an approach is consistent with the deference allotted to fact-finding activities of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal by the Supreme Court in the case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, 1993 CanLII 164 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1.”
Campbell J., in Tahmourpour v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), ( 9 Sep 1998) FC T-164-98 at
[7] The well understood standard established by this Court for a proper investigation is neutrality and thoroughness. Respecting this test, and the deference to be shown to the CHRC in exercising it discretion to investigate, Wetston J. in Jennings v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) 1995 CanLII 3607 (F.C.), (1995), 97 F.T.R. 10 (T.D.) at 29 quotes Nadon J. in Slattery v. Canadian Human Rights Commission 1994 CanLII 3463 (F.C.), [1994] 2 F.C. 574 at 600 and 605 as follows:
In determining the degree of thoroughness of investigation required to be in accordance with the rule of procedural fairness, one must be mindful of the interests that are being balanced: the complainant’s and respondent’s interests in procedural fairness and the CHRC’s interest in maintaining a workable and administratively effective system.
Jurists and tribunals lose jurisdiction through breaching principles of natural (fundamental) justice through inadequate procedural fairness or upon engaging in fatal fact-finding flaws amounting to “patent unreasonableness”, making obvious and oppressive omissions (tantamount to fraudulent concealment contrary to s. 341 of Criminal Code) or deprivation of procedural unfairness. Sinclair Prowse, J. in Laprise v. Human Rights Commission of British Columbia , (3 Aug 1999) SCBC Vanc. Reg., No. A981941 has noted a version of the Slattery v. Canada rule by noting:
[5] The role of the court in this type of application is to determine if the Commission acted within its jurisdiction (Tse v. British Columbia Council of Human Rights and Quilchena Golf and Country Club, [1991] B.C.J. No. 275 (Q.L.) (S.C.) and Mackenzie v. Howe Sound School District No.48,[1997] B.C.J. No. 2271 (Q.L.) (S.C.). To succeed in this application Ms. Laprise must establish one of the following grounds: that there is a serious error on the face of the record; that the decision is patently unreasonable; or that the investigative process was procedurally unfair. See: May v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)(1996), 39 Admin. L.R. (2nd) 226 (B.C.S.C.); Rogers v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)(1993), 21 C.H.R.R. D/67 (B.C.S.C.); Kratoska v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1997] B.C.J. No. 638 (Q.L.) (C.A.); and Mackenzie v. Howe Sound School District No.48(supra)).
[53] . . included as a aspect of procedural fairness is the obligation of the Commission to ensure that the investigative report (which is the basis on which the decision to proceed or not is made) is fair and adequate. That is, that it is neutral and thorough in the sense that it is unbiased and that there is no crucial evidence overlooked or unreasonable omissions made (Slattery v. Canada (Human Rights Commission)(No. 1)) (supra).
Slattery v. Canada NOFEDIT principle can be readily inferred from the obiter of L'Heureux-Dubé J., for the unanimous Court, in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 canvassed the criteria that should be used in determining what procedural rights the duty of fairness required in a given set of circumstances as follows at para 22 to 28:
. . . The values underlying the duty of procedural fairness relate to the principle that the individual or individuals affected should have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly, and have decisions affecting their rights, interests, or privileges made using a fair, impartial, and open process, appropriate to the statutory, institutional, and social context of the decision.
That The Evil Trio has engaged in fraudulent concealment of their behaviour being contrary to Slattery v. Canada NOFEDIT principle which tends to be committed through one or more of the following:
1. Failing to even the playing field (manipulating an uneven playing field) thus placing one party on great advantage while severely disadvantaging the other also referred to as breach of duty of procedural fairness contained in the doctrine of legitimate expectations.
2. Shutting of the eyes to commit oppressive omissions via overlooked critical evidence supportive of the case of the prejudiced party especially the trifecta of a) reduced moral blameworthiness b) need for super-stringent procedural protections and c) a diligent Oakes test application.
3. Shutting of the ears by applying policy in an inflexible manner or elevating policy to Statue level with consequences from the procedural policy when they conflict with the Statute law as is done by refusing to hear that there is a clear role for exemption or exception to be made whereby words ought to delete or inserted to fulfil the statutory mandate and more importantly in the context of the duty to protect the vulnerable groups or member of public.
4. Fraudulent fettering of the hands or feigning incapacity often while there is power and even a duty to take affirmative action thus denying the victim of abuse of adjudication benefit of law.
5. Residual abuse of statutory authority or abuse of the office or Misfeasance in Public Office (MPO).
That The Evil Trio has engaged in fraudulent concealment (contrary to s. 341 of Criminal Code) of their disregard and contempt for the essential and integral element in decision making by those who wield authority over others herein referred to as Slattery v. Canada NOFEDIT principle (which can be viewed as a diligent application of Oakes Test when one party is the State or the population such that Charter is engaged) that mandates a delicate and throughfall balancing the rights of parties with neutrality, objectivity, fairness, empathy, diligence, integrity and thoroughness or thoughtfulness (NOFEDIT)
That The Evil Trio has engaged in fraudulent concealment that their actions, directives, executive orders and those obtained from the courts are all tainted with partiality or bias, subjectivity, unfairness, lack of empathy, non-diligent, lacking in integrity thoroughness and thoughtfulness. They are self-serving abuse, oppressive and tyrannical and tainted with delict that have components of intentional infliction of mental duress, ( tort),
Deprivation of counsel and interpreters which amounts to denial of right to be properly heard by the tribunal to vulnerable groups is a popular tactic to create uneven field in light of the obiters like (“Lay people cannot be expected to draft precise, correct legal pleadings (per Chicoine J., in A.L. v. Saskatchewan, ( 6 Mar 2008) SKQB 115 QBG 1306/05 JCR )@ http://bit.ly/ALvSask ; I do not, however, differ from the expression by Dawson J. in the High Court of Australia on the usefulness of counsel .. It is only realistic to recognize that an accused who is unrepresented is ordinarily at a disadvantage because of his lack of representation. ( per Southin J. A., for the court by noting this at para 49 in R. v. Ho, ( 2 Dec 2003) BCCA 663 (CanLII) (2003), 17 C.R. (6th) 223; (2003), 21 B.C.L.R. (4th) 83 : upon citing the authority of High Court of Australia, in Dietrich v. The Queen (1992), 177 C.L.R. 292 at 344-45,; “The appropriate balance between litigation adversaries is less likely to be found where one party is represented by counsel and the other is self-represented” (per Huband J.A. in Moss v. NN Life Insurance Co., (3 Feb 2004) MBCA 10 (CanLII) CFN AI03-30-05710; (2004), 180 Man. R. (2d) 253 ); “The complex of rules and procedures is such that, realistically speaking, it cannot be navigated without a lawyer’s expert advice” (per Binnie J., in a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v. Blood Tribe Department of Health, 2008 SCC 44 (CanLII)(2008), 294 D.L.R. (4th) 385 ; (2008), 74 Admin. L.R. (4th) 38.
Supreme Court of Canada has noted in Cosgrove Export Brewery Co. v. The King, [1928] SCR 405, @https://canlii.ca/t/fsmth I presume this court will be inclined to take it into consideration as it “involved substantial rights or (the) decision appealed from may cause grave injustice.” Lambe v. Armstrong [1897 CanLII 73 (SCC), 27 Can. S.C.R. 309. In Eastern Townships Bank v. Swan et al., 1898 CanLII 63 (SCC), 29 SCR 193, @https://canlii.ca/t/g7xs1 the Court noted: Where a grave injustice has been inflicted upon a party to a suit, the Supreme Court of Canada will interfere for the purpose of granting appropriate relief although the question involved upon the appeal may be one of mere local practice only. Lambe v. Arm strong (27 Can. S. C. R. 390) followed.]
Infliction of “grave injustice” or travesty of justice (sufficient to seek special leave of Supreme Court of Canada) via deprivation of counsel to the mentally disabled thus compelling a legally incompetent individual (“patient”) to act as if competent and conduct own legal proceedings before the tribunal which amount to infliction of coerced crawl cruelty @https://bit.ly/CoercedCrawlCruelty such that there can be a no prejudice to reopening the same matter upon securing a legal counsel if the pleadings are struck out (per Dovell J., in at para 16 in Lazarescu-King v. Transgas Ltd., (11 May 2005) SKQB 223 (CanLII) Saskatoon Reg. CFN- QBG 641/05 JCS @ https://canlii.ca/t/1l2zj) mandating that court may not deem the faulty Charter pleadings as fatal or null in nature. This rule has been enunciated by Koenigsberg J., at para 74 in Christie v. AG of B.C. et al, (8 Feb 2005) BCSC 122 CFN: A993472; (2005), 250 D.L.R. (4th) 728 @ https://www.canlii.org/t/1jr89:
[74] In addition, it is not uncommon to encounter a self-represented individual who is psychologically or emotionally unable to present his or her case in a courtroom in such a way that justice is not only done but can be seen to be done. Thus, I take judicial notice of the fact that many self-represented individuals in a wide variety of cases are denied effective access to justice when they cannot afford appropriate legal representation.
Those found to be incapable based on declaration of being mentally incapable or incapable of managing own legal affairs pursuant to s. 6(3) of Patients Property Act and Mental Health Act are exempt from the criticism of Madam Justice Newbury in Christie v. British Columbia, 2005 BCCA 631 @https://canlii.ca/t/1m7bl stated as follows:
[38] For his part, the Attorney General of Canada maintained that the Chambers judge erred in taking judicial notice of “the fact that many self-represented individuals in a wide variety of cases are denied effective access to justice when they cannot afford appropriate legal representation.” (Para. 74.) The Chambers judge made this finding after explaining her own direct observation that the number of self-represented persons in the court had increased; that most were self-represented there because they could not pay for legal services; and that many were [might be] incapable of presenting their cases in proper form. Canada submitted that the Chambers judge here greatly exceeded the scope of the doctrine of judicial notice, which is limited to matters that are so generally known and accepted that they cannot be questioned, or matters that can be verified “by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” (R. v. Potts (1982) 1982 CanLII 1751 (ON CA), 66 C.C.C. (2d) 219 at 226 (Ont. C.A.))
Closed door clandestine decision rendering through denial of openness is a serious or fatal flaw of NOFEDIT principle. The force of Charter s. 14 was endorsed by Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Tran [1994] 2 SCR 951, @https://canlii.ca/t/1frqw by answering the question in affirmative the question No.1.Did the failure to provide the appellant with full and contemporaneous translation of all the evidence at trial, in particular the questioning and testimony of the interpreter, deny the appellant of his right to be present during the whole trial and to make full answer and defence, contrary to ss. 650(1) and (3) of the Criminal Code?
right to be present at his trial means that he has the right “to have direct knowledge of anything that transpires in the course of his trial which could involve his vital interests” an inference that cannot be imputed to an individual who is subject to Certificate of Incapability due to mental incapacity and found unfit to manage his legal and financial affairs.