The Ontario Human Rights Code as applied by Minister of Attorney General Michael Bryant in 2005 through his department at the Ontario Human Rights Commission is fraud per the tort of deceit with refusal to abide by the public policy of "everyone in Ontario is equal" the positive statement that is fraud in the preamble of the code.  This fraud is also a refusal by the Ontario Government to abide by the code public policy to eliminate discrimination which cannot be done when the Minister of Attorney General refuses to manage his department at the Commission and Tribunal, and Judges in our Court System to abide by the policy "everyone in Ontario is equal" and ignores the measures to codify sections 5 to 10 of the code and stare decisis to Human Rights case laws.   This includes section 7 that any woman exposed to pornography in the work place has a prima facie complaint of sexual harassment.   What the Minister is offering through his departments at the Commission and Judicial Courts System with discretion to decision makers instead of discretion to stare decisis and "everyone is equal" public policy is an image Human Rights Process:  It does not matter about the truth it only matters that we provide a process so when they say we disadvantage them we say we provide a process.  

The Minister of Attorney General through the MAG Act is responsible for all justice in Ontario this includes Judges as well as the Commission and part of this management includes training his staff to abide by the United Nations Treaty for women to eliminate discrimination.   In open court Justice Lofchik advised me he does not have to abide by the UN Treaty and he refused my arguments using the UN Treaty and left out of his endorsement required any analysis to the UN Treaty.  Justice Lofchik also stated in open court that the Commission does not have to abide by stare decisis of section 7 of the Code that everyone exposed to pornography has a prima facie complaint made of sexual harassment due to discretion which is one of the material issue in dispute for this Appeal since I was exposed to pornography at my employers place of employment like other successful HR complainants dismissed due to fettering of discretion.  Thus the current Minister of Attorney General and pass are responsible for this discriminatory attitude coming from Justice Lofchik and other judges refusing to abide by our equality laws and the UN Treaty.  The material issue in this appeal is fettering discretion by Minister of Attorney General, Michael Bryant, and his staff at the commission and the judges in our courts refusing to abide by the top law in Canada and public policy of "everyone is equal" to eliminate discrimination and also the UN Treaty. 

Court of Appeal File #C50990

AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL             

Ontario Human Rights Code is Fraud per Tort of Deceit

THE APPELLANT, CLAUDETTE LOSIER, APPEALS to the Court of Appeal of Ontario from the final judgment of Justice Lofchik dated August 21^st, 2009, for the Crown Defendants (Ontario Human Rights Commission, Dina Waiks, Shannon Meadows-Lee, and Minister of Attorney General (Michael Bryant) only, made at the Superior Court of Justice at 45 Main St., Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 2B7.

THE APPELLANT ASKS that the judgment made by Justice Lofchik for the Crown Defendants be null and void, and reverse to an order allowing the plaintiff to continue and amend her claims against the Crown Defendants as joint tortfeasors with her employer defendants to these suits (04-13797 and 05-18500) be granted for intentional torts and causes of actions pleaded:  Constitutional Tort, Misfeasance of Public Office, Deceit, Defamation, Conspiracy to injure and Intentional Inflection of Emotional Distress. 

THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: 

1.               Breach of Rule 21 Rule to dismiss Crown?s motion for delay in filing Rule 21 Motion;

2.               Breach of Rule 21 ?plain and obvious? test taking advantage of self represented litigants with no law training to write proper statement of claim and creating an unequal justice system;

3.               Abuse of Discretion by Justice Lofchik and Crown Defendants per Discretion Principal of ?an intangible principle that is used to bar proceedings that are inconsistent with the objectives of public policy? and that policy is per the Ontario Human Rights Code Preamble ?that everyone in Ontario is equal?;

4.               Violation of the United Nations Treaty the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and its Optional Protocol 2000 Article 2, a to f;

5.               Breach of the Charter sections 15, 24, and 52;

6.               Breach of Ontario Human Rights Code preamble that ?everyone in Ontario is equal? and sections 5 to 10 the measures to codify;

7.               Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology v. Bhadauria SCC 1981

8.               Kulyk para 41 ? Sopinka J, 1996 S.C.R. Mooring v. Canada (National Parole Board) that stare decisis of human rights cases applies

9.               The Longley v. Revenue Canada case dated 1999 refers to Supreme Court case of Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General) dated 1997 that nullifies all of the Crown?s case authorities particularly Bhadauria case dated 1982 and clearly states that a person who is being discriminated by a government staff or institution or the legislation itself can rely on the Charter as a Constitutional Tort and sue for damages civilly;

10.            Supreme Court of Canada precedent case of Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson dated 1989 after the 1982 Bhadauria case and also nullifies all of  the Crown?s case authorities;    

11.            Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General) dated 1997 that nullifies the Bhadauria case and Justice Lofchik?s argument in Court left out of his endorsement record that the Commission has discretion to violate my human rights due to time and resources allocation problems;

12.            Error in law in misapplying the common law principal of stare decisis that a judge should not give a judgment contrarory to that of another judge unless it is shown that some binding authority in case law or some relevant statute was not considered such as the United Nations Treaty and SCC? case law on the United Nations Treaty application in our Justice System;

13.            Error in law of misapplication of the common law principal of stare decisis such as the process referred to as ?distinuishing the facts? of opposing precedents when Justice Lofchik ignores all of the applicant?s precedents that make the Crown?s precedents on discretion null and void;

14.            Breach of Rule of Law;

15.            Institutional Bias;

16.            Preferred treatment to Crown evidence of Institional Bias re:  Justice Lofchik allowing me to amend my statement of claims against Employers but not the Crown defendants when they are joint tort feasores per principal of joint tortfeasors for tort of Conspiracy and defamation;

17.            Justice Lofchik?s endorsement record is not a proper endorsement record and analysis of material issue in dispute with absolutely no references to my alleged pleadings that he claims are in error per the example of Justice Crane?s endorsement record in KRP Enterprises Inc., et al and Corporation of Haldimand County, et al, [2007] (pg 4 to 6 thumbnail chronology from Statement of Claim, para 25 page 15 facts from statement, para 30 page 18/19, para 33 page 20/21/22 ), and Hunt v. Carey;

18.            Refusing my request to amend my claims with additional facts and continuation of wrong doing through the courts is evidence of discrimination by Justice Lofchik via differential treatment per Crown?s authority HVK pg 16 para 56 Himel J?s decision in rule 21 motion:  ?in that the pleadings contain bald assertions, I order that particulars be provided with respect to paragraphs 51 to 57 of the claim within 30 days of this decision?

19.            KRP Endorsement record from Justice Crane para 29 page 17:  does not contain the typically pleaded essential elements of this cause of action. 

20.            Breach of rules of natural justice per Cashin case law by Crown defendants, Justice Lofchik, Divisional Court and Ontario Court of Appeal for 2006 Judicial Review: fair hearing, and impartiality;

21.            Breach of Human Rights Case decision that all provincial and federal human rights legislation is relevant to the interpretation of one human rights statute;

22.            No pleadings of Natural Justice cause of action in statement of claim identified by Justice Lofchik with specific paragraph, because the paragraph  pleads breach of natural justice as improper purpose for tort of Misfeasance of Public Office;

23.            Breach of fair hearing as Justice Jofchik on July 2 and 3^rd 2009 refused me to submit my rebuttals of the Crown?s argument pleaded no facts to show Justice Lofchik where the facts where pleaded so that he can say in his endorsement no facts pleaded;

24.            Elements of Tort of Misfeasance of Public Office met per Roncarelli  v. Duplessis 1959 SCR case para 169 ?fraud, malice, collusion?? pleaded sufficiently for improper purpose;

25.            No pleadings of tort of negligence only pleadings of Intentional Torts:  Conspiracy to Injure, Deceit, Defamation, Constitional Tort, Misfeasance of Public Office, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;  

26.            Authority of Starline Entertainment Centre Inc. v. Ciccarelli (1995) that no special immunities when public officers act beyond the powers which are accorded to them, and common law court remedies allowed for civil causes of action and not via a Judicial Review;

27.            Bad Faith pleaded sufficiently;

28.            That the precedent case of Westlake set in 1971 was an unconsidered decision prior to the United Nations? Treaty where there is no immunity for Human Rights Violations, and the Charter in 1982 which the decision in White v. OHRC was based on.  The facts and causes of action in Westlake are not similar to this case;

29.            Error in law by not applying the common law principle of ?declining jurisdiction? which in turn leads to ?exceeding jurisdiction? which removes immunity and allows the Crown Defendants to be sued.  That is the principle in law that judicial immunity is lifted if act maliciously in order to harm claimants;

30.            Error in law by not applying the common law principle that of the normal rights of the injured individual can be applied to pursue intentional tort remedies against the administrator:  such as Conspiracy to injure, deceit, defamation, Constitutional Tort, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

31.            Pleaded sufficiently for the Tort of Conspiracy per precedent case authorities:  Cement Lafarge, Chahal v.  Khalsa Community School (2000), Hunt v. Carey and Crown?s Authority;

32.            Pleaded sufficiently for tort of defamation per Klar?s Tort law authority;

33.            I have a cause of action for the tort of deceit as the code?s preamble ?that everyone is equal in Ontario? is a false positive respresentation and the Ministers of Attorney General are responsible for this fraudulant law in Ontario per the MAG Act;

34.            I have pleaded sufficiently for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress per Clark vs.  Canada, and Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse; 

35.            I have a valid claim against the ex Minister of Attorney General and the current one per the United Nations Treaty, MAG Act, and case of KRP with continuing causes of actions and damages after date of statements of claims, and the 05 matter clearly stated I was intending to ammend my claim;

36.            Supreme Court of Canada Practice is that they are not a court of error submitted to Justice Lofchik with comment that this results in corruption by lower court judges knowing their decision won?t be overturned;

37.            Institutional bias by Supreme Court of Canada on refused leave to appeal per law clerks? memo?s on line for my 3 files #31438, #31518, and #31517 due to Ex Minister of Attorney General had connections at the Supreme Court of Canada per recent news events state he use to be a law clerk at the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 and to protect the career of a political star Mr. Micheal Bryant;

38.            And any other argument that arises before the appeal.

THE BASIS OF THE APPELLATE COURT?S JURISDICTIONS IS:  is the Courts of Justice Act section 6(1)(b), Rules of Civil procedure 61 to 61.12.  The judgment appealed from is final.  Leave to appeal is not required.

The Appellant requests that this appeal be heard at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N5.