The Ontario Human Rights Code is Fraud per Tort of Deceit

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 record 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. 

I have been given an extension till January 9th to perfect my appeal C50990 because the Hamilton Court reporters have not provided me with copy of the court report.