13. Justice Lofchik?s order can be set aside for breaching stare decisis of my authorities per my factum paras #31 to #85 per HR facts (CT pgs 777-877-899).   My pleadings are sufficient for defamation/libel tort with 2 employers? injurious falsehoods of incompetency being repeated by Crown plus falsehoods of insufficient evidence of Code violations for prima facie facts, and MAG approving it through the Appeal Courts; thus they all have made the libel per SCC case of Hill.   Lawful discretion does not protect the Crown under the Tort of Conspiracy (CT pgs 174-193, 253-290, 305-24, 420-427, 640-49, 704-729, 793-818), Defamation (CT pgs 112-118, 119-20, 154-155, 238-241, 252, 342, 742, 818-836), and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (CT pgs 397-99, 836-862-868) per my motion factum, in court arguments and the following:

        ?Any act or omission done or made by a public official in the purported performance of the functions of the office can found an action for misfeasance of public office.? 

       ?At the pleadings stage, it is sufficient that the statement of claim alleges that the plaintiffs have suffered mental distress, anger, depression and anxiety as a consequence of the alleged misconduct.? 

       ?Sekhon persisted in his unjustified allegations of the plaintiff?s misbehaviour with teachers it was a basis for terminating the plaintiff.  This according to Varner v. Morton supra, is an overt act of conspiracy.?

       ?The manner and the orchestration of the termination is evidence thereof as well as the defendants purpose of terminating the plaintiff on spurious causes and the defamation of the plaintiff at the May 18^th meeting and subsequent are all conduct that is tortious in itself.? 

       ?A second form of actionable conspiracy exists when two or more combine to injure a third person by unlawful means ? eg. the commission of a crime or tort, or the infringement of a guaranteed constitutional right?In such a case it is irrelevant that the objects of the conspirators in using those means may be legitimate?Hence a conspiracy may be actionable if either the end or the means, or both, are unlawful.?

       ?to do unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means?

       ?Mr. Hunt had suffered personal injury?suppress information the defendants had created a foreseable risk of causing harm which he in fact suffered.? 

       ?the violation of the right itself is sufficient injury.? 

?The so-called ?single publication rule? does not apply to concurrent tortfeasors, who can be defined as persons whose torts concur, or run together, to produce the same damage.?

?three instances:  agency, vicarious liability, and concerted action.?

?As set out in Hill, supra, ?if one person writes a libel, another repeats it, and a third approves what is written, they all have made the defamatory libel.?

?The Declaration and Report are by their terms inextricably interrelated.  By their actions, the appellants become joint tortfeasors.  Further, they, as lawyers, signed the Declaration without undertaking any investigation.  For Lawyers to act in this way constituted reckless behaviour.?

Odhavji, supra, para 18, 20, and 41, Book of Authorities, Tab 17

Chahal v. Khalsa Community School (2000), 2 C.C.E.L. (3d), paras 110-115, 118, 119, 122, and 124, Book of Authorities, Tab 5

Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452, pgs 8 to 12, Book of Authority, Tab 3

Hunt, supra, paras 4 (#19 and #20), 8, 9, 21, 23, 26-39, 46, 47, 52, 54 and 57, Book of Authority, Tab 11

Klar, supra, pgs 289, 293, 294, 601, 603, 605, 628, 636, 672, 682 and 683,Book of Authority, Tab 13

Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd. 1995, 126 D.L.R. (4^th), paras 38, 39, 42, 43, 47, 48, 53, 61, 62, 69, 73, 74, 76-80, 98, 99, 103, Book of Authorities, Tab 1

Clark v. Canada (1994), 20 C.C.L.T. (2d), pg 241/42, and paras. 4-8, 15, 18, 23, 27, 58, 59-65, Book of Authorities, Tab 6

Justice Lofchik?s endorsement record; Affidavit of Plaintif; 04-13797 claim para 141; Motion Factum paras #31 to 85; MMP?s HR rebutal and 3 defence statements with no incompetence allegations (2 after case analysis); CT (see above); Appeal Book and Compendium, Tab 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7

14.  The appellant has a valid cause of action against the MAG personally and Her Majesty the Queen similar to the KRP case for intentionally refusing to properly enforce the Code their duty to act to prevent discrimination like the police?s duty to act to prevent crime (CT 220) by mismanagement of the departments under their control per sections 27(2) and 29 para #11 above, and the Appeal courts per MAG Act when MAG appoints Ontario Judges with concerted action of dismissing everything to avoid trial resulting in damages that includes benefits of making me whole per the Code per motion factum paras 2 -5, 16, Issue 3, 24-26, 28, 37-39, 43, 45-49, 53, 54, 58, 59, and 75-79 and CT.  My pleadings against the MAG/Queen are all the paras dealing with the unlawful investigation by Crown defendants and HR facts, and now includes the JR Courts refusing to weigh evidence per their legal duty, approving a written libel, and part of the discovery rule of additional facts of misconduct with all now acting without statutory authority of the MAG Act, OHR?s Code, UN Treaty and Charter (CT pgs 148, 220 (broadly discretion error) -224, 250, 323-43 390-92, 689-700 and 777-899). Justice Lofchik?s order can be set aside per the following:

        ?The plaintiffs pleaded that this acquiescence was a violation of s. 5(b) of the MAG Act.  Section 5(b) of the MAG Act states that the Attorney General shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law.?

        ?alleged OPP failure to enforce the Henco injunction depriving them the benefits of their contracts?

        ?(b) shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law;   (c) shall superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in Ontario;?

       ?The court refused to summarily dismiss a defamation action as limitation-barred, applying the ?discoverability rule? to the alleged defamation.?

       ?An amendment will be granted after commencement of trial unless there is prejudice.?

                        KRP, supra, Justice Crane?s endorsement record paras 7, 10, 12, 14, 23, 28, 29, 30, 33, Crown?s Factum, paras 18, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 38, 40, Book of Authorities, Tab 14

Ministry of the Attorney General Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.17, s. 5 (b)

Rules of Civil Procedure 21.03 pgs 525 and 531, and 26.01 pg 612

Affidavit of Plaintiff; Motion Factum 04 matter para 2, 7, 16, Issue 3, 24, 26, 38, 45, 48, 49, and 53; Article on Bryant as MAG; and CT (see above), Appeal Book and Compendium, Tab 2, 6, and 8

15. Justice Lofchik?s paras #36 and #59 that ?allegations based on assumptions and speculations? not to be taken as true is based on ?exception to the Rule? from the Crown?s factum page 11 para 39 of SCC case of Operation Dismantle Inc. of speculation of future event of testing cruise missiles because damages could not be proven.  Violence is done to Rule 21 where allegations of pass events of fabricated insufficient evidence from flawed investigations in 2004 are capable of proof per trial case of Chahal.  The correct Rule 21 test to apply is the ?plain and obvious? per SCC of Hunt v. Carey pages 7 to 15 dated 1990 that includes this Appeal Court?s decision and references Operation Dismantle 1985 case but not the exception to the rule used by Justice Lofchik?s (CT pgs 148, 217, 250, 628-631, 633-660, 704-729, and 777-900).

Justice Lofchik?s order can be set aside for breaching rule 21, Hunt and KRP cases that state a judge is required by law to read generously with allowance for the plaintiff?s drafting deficincies due to no law training on how to write a proper statement of claim per my factum paras 50 to 55.  His arguments from para #1 to #70 are all due to drafting dificiencies which includes not properly expressing the elements of each tort clearly but rather repeating them throughout the whole claims.  Deputy Judge Nairn?s Rule 21 endorsement dismissing Lyman?s 2004 Rule 21 motion is a proper analysis of the law for same facts against Lyman for Small Claims matter dropped for claim 05-18300.   Justice Lofchik admits to my inadequacies in his endorsement para #30, CT and his May 14^th 2008 order. His order can be set aside for refusing to order amendment of claim for Crown defendants who are joint tortfeasors with Employer defendants which is bias to intervene in the hearing process to favour Crown Defendants, as is refusing to dismiss their motion for delay in filing in 2008 when they received the claims in 2005:

     ?We are not, in my opinion, required by the principle enunciated in Inuit Tapirisat, supra, to take as true the appellant?s allegations concerning the possible consequences of the testing of the cruise missile.  The rule that the material facts in a statement of claim must be taken as true for the purpose of determining whether it discloses a reasonable cause of action does not require that allegations based on assumptions and speculations be taken as true.  The very nature of such an allegation is that it cannot be proven to be true by the adduction of evidence.  It would, therefore, be improper to accept that such an allegation is true.  No violence is done to the rule where allegations, incapable of proof, are not taken as proven.?

     ?The Plaintiff in this case is unrepresented and there are clearly deficiencies in the drafting of her Statements of Claim.  That being said however, I do not believe it would be appropriate to strike out these claims at this point because of the Plaintiff?s lack of legal training or her inability to express herself concisely.  Reviewing the material that she has provided, I cannot conclude that her claims are ?ridiculous? or "incapable of proof?.  While she may characterize the Defendants? conduct using a variety of terms, in essence she has alleged that her co-workers have acted improperly and as a result, she is entitled to damages.?

?I indicated at the outset that the Statement of Claim in both actions, as drafted, cannot stand and should be struck out with leave to deliver fresh statements of claims, which comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure.? 

      ?Delay in bringing a Rule 21 motion is a sufficient ground to dismiss the motion, and not merely a matter affecting costs.?

       ?I had occasion to affirm this proposition in Operation Dismantle Inc. v R., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441, 12 Admin. L.R. 16, 13 C.R.R. 287, 18 D.L.R. (4^th) 481, 59 N.R. 1 [Fed.]. At pp. 486-87 I provided the following summary of the law in this area (with which the rest of the court concurred):  ?The law then would appear to be clear.  The facts pleaded are to be taken as proved.  When so taken, the question is do they  disclose a reasonable cause of action ie a cause of action with some chance of success.?    

       ?The test remained whether the outcome of the case was ?plain and obvious? or ?beyond reasonable doubt?

        ?In my view, these arguments go to form as opposed to substance.  In accordance with the guidelines set out by Dickson J. (as he then was) in Operation Dismantle, supra, the claim must be read as generously as possible, with a view to accommodating any inadequacies in the form of the allegations due to drafting deficiencies.  With this principle in mind, I am satisfied that these pleadings may stand.?

        ?I am required to read the Statement of Claim so as to see the substance from the form.?

        ?the Court will apply principles that are informed by Charter values of access to justice?

Operation Dismantle Inc. v. R. (1985), 18 D.L.R. (4^th) 481 (S.C.C.) pg 9, Book of Authorities, Tab 18

Justice Lofchik?s May 14^th 2008 order and August 21^st 2009 endorsement record para 30, 36 and 59; Affidavit of Plaintiff; Statement of claims; Crown?s motion factum page 11 para 39; Plaintiff?s 04 factum para 27, 50 to 57; documents of October 11 cancel motion hearing by Defendants; Deputy Judge Nairn?s endorsement for Lyman?s failed Rule 21 Motion; and CT (see above), Appeal Book and Compendium, Tabs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10

Rules of Civil Procedure 2005, page 525, Tab

Hunt, supra, paras 4 (#19 and #20), 8, 9, 21, 23, 26-39, 46, 47, 52, 54 and 57, Book of Authorites, Tab 11

 KRP Enterprises Inc, et al and Corporation of Haldimand County, et al, [2007], O.J. No. 114/2006-CP. paras 8, 10, 14, and 30, and MAG?s factum for KRP suit, page 10 para 23, Book of Authorities, Tab 14

16.  The Minister of Attorney General, Michael Bryant, was a law clerk at the SCC prior to 1999 which is sufficient evidence of apprehension of bias with connections with Law Clerks who decide what is placed before the Judges per the SCC practice rules which was not my appeal application documents or appeal argument per my factum para #37 and #38 but their memorandum resulting in refuse leave to appeal in January 2007.    The SCC practice (CT pgs 890-899) results in abuse of lower courts breaching rule of law per the following:

       ?provided with an objective summary and a memorandum prepared by staff lawyers which contain analysis of the issues in order to ferret out the issue of public importance.?

       ?We are not a court of error?

                        Supreme Court of Canada Practice 2005, Thomson Carswell, pgs 381 and 383, Book of Authorities, Tab

Affidavit of Plaintiff; Motion Factum para 37 and 38; SCC Appeal Documents; News Articles on Bryant; CT (see above); Appeal Book and Compendium, Tabs 2, 6, and 8

PART V ? RELIEF SOUGHT

17.  The appellant seeks the order to amend her statement of claim with the Crown Defendants, including the Commission, Mag and Queen, for discriminatory application of the Code, and as joint tortfeasors per Justice Lofchik?s 2008 order for Employer Defendants.  The appellant request the August 21^th 2009 order be voided and cost on a substantial indemnity basis be charged to the Crown respondents.