Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin is Out of Judiciary Balance Toward Powerful Corporation Ending Poor Suffering More than ever!
His Honor Asshole is Canadian Judge
Funny Fiction Author Major Nourhaghighi
Canadian Counter-Dictionary, and Human Rights' Violations in Canada
Half Face Judges of Corrupt Supreme Court of Canada
Major Nourhaghighi:
It Has Been Said Judges Involved in Felonies as Against
Administration of Justice and Public Interests in the
Hell would live with Half Face as in their
Fake Lives Have Shown Half of
their Real Faces
Administration of Justice and Public Interests in the
Hell would live with Half Face as in their
Fake Lives Have Shown Half of
their Real Faces
Sample of Over One Thousands Judgments, Orders
and other Legal Documents issued by Judges as against
Judges, Lawyers, Banks, Corporations, individuals,
the Crown in right of Canada, Ontario and Quebec.
Judges, Lawyers, Banks, Corporations, individuals,
the Crown in right of Canada, Ontario and Quebec.
There were Fifty Motions by Fifty Best Canadian Lawyers to Dismiss Major Nourhaghighi's Lawsuit; yet Major was successful to Dismiss all Motions that has shocked Canadian Legal System that an Iranian (Persian Langue) by Self Education was able to defeat the best Canadian Lawyers many graduated Yale & Harvard Law Schools: See Justice N. D. Coo Judgment in the middle of page:
The Samples of Countless Charges, Subpoenas , Judgments, Endorsements& Orders made Against me and/or For me:
June 8, 1993: Justice of Peace John DOE issued charges against Condo 935 for nuisances against my family and me: v. Her Majesty The Queen & Nourhaghighi v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 935-Defendant
June 16, 1995: Justice N. Douglas Coo:
Nourhaghighi v. Toronto Hospital et al. File No: 95-CU-84058
March 27, 1996: Justice of Ontario Court (Gen. Div.):
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 935-Applicant v. Nourhaghighi-Respondent, File No.: Re 6244/96
August 2, 1996: Corrupt Justices Doherty, Weiler, and Austin JJA the Panel Ontario Court of Appeal
Nourhaghighi-Applicant v. Her Majesty the Queen-Ontario-Respondent- M17265
September 16, 1997: Corrupt Judge Day: Nourhaghighi v. Metro Toronto Police et al File No. 97-CV-125773
September 22, 1997: Corrupt Justices Abella, Charron, and Campbell (adhoc) JJA the Panel Ontario Court of Appeal
Nourhaghighi-Applicant/Appellant v. Her Majesty the Queen-Ontario-Respondent- Mandmous v. Judge Lampkin
July 15, 1998: Justice Austin, Moldaver, and Borins JJA the Panel Ontario Court of Appeal
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation 935 appellant v. Nourhaghighi- Respondent, File No.: C24450
June 1, 1999, the Crown's Application against major was dismissed in file T-1237-98; Canada v. Nourhaghighi
June 8, 1993: Justice of Peace John DOE issued charges against Condo 935 for nuisances against my family and me: v. Her Majesty The Queen & Nourhaghighi v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 935-Defendant
June 16, 1995: Justice N. Douglas Coo:
Nourhaghighi v. Toronto Hospital et al. File No: 95-CU-84058
March 27, 1996: Justice of Ontario Court (Gen. Div.):
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 935-Applicant v. Nourhaghighi-Respondent, File No.: Re 6244/96
August 2, 1996: Corrupt Justices Doherty, Weiler, and Austin JJA the Panel Ontario Court of Appeal
Nourhaghighi-Applicant v. Her Majesty the Queen-Ontario-Respondent- M17265
September 16, 1997: Corrupt Judge Day: Nourhaghighi v. Metro Toronto Police et al File No. 97-CV-125773
September 22, 1997: Corrupt Justices Abella, Charron, and Campbell (adhoc) JJA the Panel Ontario Court of Appeal
Nourhaghighi-Applicant/Appellant v. Her Majesty the Queen-Ontario-Respondent- Mandmous v. Judge Lampkin
July 15, 1998: Justice Austin, Moldaver, and Borins JJA the Panel Ontario Court of Appeal
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation 935 appellant v. Nourhaghighi- Respondent, File No.: C24450
June 1, 1999, the Crown's Application against major was dismissed in file T-1237-98; Canada v. Nourhaghighi
CAMPBELL, Douglas = Brave and Honest Justice of Federal Court who exactly refered in his Order
to my complaints against conspiracy of the Courts & Goverment; not like other judges that have
changed facts to not convict the Courts & Goverment of Canada. The Crown disobeyed the Campbell Order and again filed an application [T-1020-07] before O'Keefe J, who dismissed the Crown' s second application under s.40 of the Federal court Act and awarded costs to Major
to my complaints against conspiracy of the Courts & Goverment; not like other judges that have
changed facts to not convict the Courts & Goverment of Canada. The Crown disobeyed the Campbell Order and again filed an application [T-1020-07] before O'Keefe J, who dismissed the Crown' s second application under s.40 of the Federal court Act and awarded costs to Major
November 17, 2003, Major's Motion against the Crown under s.40 of the Federal Court Act was granted, and the Crown was declared as Vexatious Litigant!
![]()
O' REILLY, James W = Judge of Federal Court made Order under s.40 of the Federal Court Act against the Crown "Vexatious Litigant" upon Major's Motion in file T-768-03; the Crown disobeyed O'Reilly Order on Feb 2004, and without leave of a judge moved before a new judge FINCKENSTEIN, and dismissed the application!
January 31, 2005: Justice Lemieux:Major Nourhaghighi v. Security Intelligent Review Committee et at; T-762-04
July 28, 2005: Black Judge Pitt: Major Nourhaghighi v. Caber Management et al, File No. 273627CM1
January 31, 2005: Justice Lemieux:Major Nourhaghighi v. Security Intelligent Review Committee et at; T-762-04
July 28, 2005: Black Judge Pitt: Major Nourhaghighi v. Caber Management et al, File No. 273627CM1
August 30, 2005: Black Judge Pitt: Major Nourhaghighi v. Caber Management et al, NO Costs to any Party
January 16, 2006: Panel of Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded $1500 to me [Major Nourhaghighi as respondent]as against Caber Management et al; M32976
April 6, 2006; Justice C. Campbell granted my motion to amend the style of cause were respondents' names had errors
November 6, 2007, the Crown' Application against Major at " Canada v. Nourhaghighi" T-1020-07"...
January 16, 2006: Panel of Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded $1500 to me [Major Nourhaghighi as respondent]as against Caber Management et al; M32976
April 6, 2006; Justice C. Campbell granted my motion to amend the style of cause were respondents' names had errors
November 6, 2007, the Crown' Application against Major at " Canada v. Nourhaghighi" T-1020-07"...
O' KEEFE, John A.= Judge of Federal Court of Canada, for unknow reason unlawfuly hold his decision in a simple motion that Major filed to strike the Crown's application; however, finally after six monuths dismissed the Crown application and awarded costs to Major against the Crown who was misrepresented by Three lawyers in file T-1020-07
Justice of Peace John DOE issued charges against Condo 935 for nuisances against my family and me:
Her Majesty The Queen & Nourhaghighi v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 935-Defendant
Since 1993, the Attorneys General of Canada & Ontario by conspiracy with many corrupt judges did not let this problem be solved that caused countless chains of actions in which the Canadian Taxpayers paid over $100,000,000.00 the costs of the chains of the proceedings in which I was the main party as a plaintiff or a respondent, caused me also ten millions dollars General damage and Special damage.
The corrupt owners of Condo, Perez, McCann, Kettle, Theis paid over $60,000 bribes to the City of Toronto and Judge McNish, to dismiss these charges, ended to countless chains of civil and criminal proceedings against me/and for me.
Frauds and conspiracies of the Governments of Canada and Ontario, and their agents against Countless Lawful Orders that Major Nourhaghighi obtained against the Crowns and their parties Defendants in his ample proceedings:
1- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Ontario Crown against Provincial Judge Mercer Order, February 6, 1991Queen of Ontario Against ("v.") David Travis; Major was Victim of assault
2- Frauds & Conspiracies Justice by Peace McNish v. Orders of Provincial Judges Harris and Silverman, Feb 7-14, 1994
Queen of Ontario V. Condominium 935, Major was Victim and Prosecutor for Queen!
3- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Ontario-Crown against Deputy Judge Levine's Order, May 31,1994
Nourhaghighi V. ANS Taxi services[involved in sabotages against public], judgment
4- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Ontario Crown against Provincial Judge Fairgrieve's Order, July 4, 1994
Queen of Ontario V. Nourhaghighi, Motor Vehicle Accident with Police Vehicle
5- Frauds and Conspiracies by Justice of Peace McNish against Provincial Judge Fairgrieve Order, August 15, 1994
Queen of Ontario V. Condominium 935, Major was Victim and Prosecutor for Queen!
6- Frauds and Conspiracies by Borden and Elliot and Crown against Federally Judge Normal Coo Order, June 16, 1995
Nourhaghighi V. Toronto Hospital and Fifty other defendant for conspiracies 7- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Ontario Crown against Provincial Judge Knazan's Order, November 23, 1995
Queen of Ontario V. Nourhaghighi, Appeals V. Two Highway Traffic Tickets granted
8- Frauds and Conspiracies by Condo& Ontario-Crown against Justice 's Order, March 27, 1996
Condominium 935 V. Nourhaghighi; Condo lost the case; Costs to Major, not enforced
9- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Ontario-Crown against Deputy Judge Donnelly's Order, July 10, 1996
Nourhaghighi V. Senior Lawyer A.Kwinter, conspiracy in Assessment Hearing
10- Frauds and Conspiracies by Crowns against Federal Judge Richard's Order August 19, 1996-Smuggling by Crown
Nourhaghighi V. Queen Canada, Richard:"There is a cause of action v. Custom Canada"
11- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Crown-Ontario against Deputy Judge Donnelly's Order, August 21, 1996
Nourhaghighi V. ANS Taxi- conspiracy in Assessment Hearing October 1996
12- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Crown-Ontario against Deputy Judge Donnelly 's order, January 16, 1997
Nourhaghighi V. Dennis and Attorney General; Refusing to Enforce the Order13- Frauds and Conspiracies by Crown and Registrar v. Federally Judge Wilkins' Order, February 6, 1997
Toronto Hospital et al V. Nourhaghighi-Appellant- The Court of Appeal ON. Disobeyed the Order
14- Frauds and Conspiracies by Crown and Registrar v. Federally Judge Wilkins' Order, February 6, 1997
Nourhaghighi-Appellant v. Condominium 935 RE: File No. C23837
15- Frauds and Conspiracies by Crown and Registrar v. Federally Judge Wilkins' Order, February 6, 1997
Nourhaghighi-Appellant v. Parsons et al; RE: File No.: C24357
16- Frauds and Conspiracies by Crown and Registrar v. Federally Judge Wilkins' Order, February 6, 1997
Nourhaghighi-Appellant v. Ontario Judicial Council, Registrar Kromkampt, et al RE: File No. C26604
17- Frauds and Conspiracies by Borden and Elliot & Crown v. Judge of Court of Appeal Houlden's Order, Sept 6, 1997
Toronto Hospital et al V. Nourhaghighi- The Court of Appeal ON. Disobeyed the Order
18- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Crown against Deputy Judge Winer's Order, October 21, 1997
Nourhaghighi V. ANS Taxi- conspiracy in Enforcing the Order
19- Frauds and Conspiracies by Crown ATKINSON v. Justice Ewaschuk's Order, November 16, 1997
Queen of Ontario V. Judge Lampkin and three Witnesses-Order"Must attend at trials"Certiorari Application
20- Frauds and Conspiracies by Ontario Crown against Deputy Judge JANE DOE Order, November 17, 1997
Nourhaghighi V. ANS Taxi- conspiracy enforcing the Order to set a date for trial
21- Frauds and Conspiracies Arnold, Caber &On-Crown against Panel of Court of Appeal Orders, July 28, 1998
Condominium 935 V. Nourhaghighi; Condo Must Repair Major Unite Re.File No.C24450
22- Frauds and Conspiracies by Registrar against Panel of Court of Appeal Orders, Sept 22, 1998
Queen of Ontario V. Nourhaghighi; Descent of a Judge against Panel Decision Re: File No. C26841
23- Frauds and Conspiracies by Crown Lawyer Alvaro against Judge of Court of Appeal Feldman Order, Jan 10, 1999
Queen of Ontario V. Nourhaghighi; Descent of a Judge against Panel Decision; Re File No. C30823
24- Frauds and Conspiracies by Crown Lawyer Alvaro against Federal Judge Sharlow Order, December 1, 1999
Nourhaghighi V. Queen Canada; False Report to judge; File No. C27652
25- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Registry of Federal Court against Federal Judge Giles Order, September 1, 2000
25- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Registry of Federal Court against Federal Judge Giles Order, September 1, 2000
Nourhaghighi V. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al; Intentional disobey Order
26- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Canada Crown-Toronto against Federal Judge Gibson Order, November 1, 2000
Nourhaghighi V. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al; Intentional disobey Order
27- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Canada Crown-Toronto against Federal Judge Pinard Order, Sept 5, 2003
Nourhaghighi Mandamus Application v. Canada Minister of Citizenship T-768-03
28- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Canada Crown-Toronto against Federal Judge Lafreniere's Order, Sept 5, 2003
Nourhaghighi Mandamus Application v. Canada Minister of Citizenship T-768-03
29- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Canada Crown-Toronto against Federal Judge GAUTHEIR Order, Sept 24, 2003
Nourhaghighi Mandamus Application v. Canada Minister of Citizenship T-768-03
30- Frauds and Conspiracies by the Canada Crown-Toronto against Federal Judge GAUTHEIR Order, October7, 2003
Nourhaghighi Mandamus Application v. Canada Minister of Citizenship T-768-03
31- Frauds and Conspiracies by Judge Lafreniere's against Order of Federal Judge O'Reilly dated, November 19, 2003
Nourhaghighi Mandamus Application v. Canada Minister of Citizenship T-768-03
32- Frauds and Conspiracies by by Judge Lafreniere's against Order of Federal Judge Snider November 21, 2003
Nourhaghighi Mandamus Application v. Canada Minister of Citizenship T-768-03
31- Frauds and Conspiracies by Judge FINCKENSTEIN against Order of Federal Judge O'Reilly-November 19, 2003
Nourhaghighi Mandamus Application v. Canada Minister of Citizenship T-768-03
31- Frauds and Conspiracies by Judge Lafreniere's against Order of Federal Judge O'Reilly dated, November 19, 2003
Nourhaghighi Mandamus Application v. Canada Minister of Citizenship T-768-03
32- Frauds and Conspiracies by Judges Ducharme and Pitt against Order of Federal Judge LEMIEUX, January 31, 2005
Major Nourhaghighi-Mandamus Application v. Security Intelligent Review Committee et al T-762-04
33- Frauds and Conspiracies by Crown and Caber against Orders of Judges Ducharme and Pitt , July 28, 2005
Major Nourhaghighi-Mandamus Application v. Security Intelligent Review Committee et al T-762-04
ONTARIO COURT ( General Division)
RE : NOURHAGHIGHI v. TORONTO HOSPITAL et al.
BEFORE: COO J.
HEARD: JUNE 16, 1995
BEFORE: COO J.
HEARD: JUNE 16, 1995
Para#1
1 The statement of claim will be struck out. As drawn it is unsupportable for reasons
2 which are manifest from a simple reading. It breaches all fundamental rules of
3 pleading. Whether it is possible to draft a pleading to cover all the defendants and
4 their various alleged activities in regard to the plaintiff may be open to question, but
5 the action cannot stand on the foundation of the present statement of claim.
1 The statement of claim will be struck out. As drawn it is unsupportable for reasons
2 which are manifest from a simple reading. It breaches all fundamental rules of
3 pleading. Whether it is possible to draft a pleading to cover all the defendants and
4 their various alleged activities in regard to the plaintiff may be open to question, but
5 the action cannot stand on the foundation of the present statement of claim.
Para#2
6 The plaintiff represents himself in this action, as apparently he does in a number of
7 other actions. He has that right, something which I have been at pains to emphasize
8 to him, but his interests might possibly be better served if he had counsel. That is a
9 decision which is for him alone to make, and it may very well be that as he sees
10 things, the retention of counsel would be in appropriate.
6 The plaintiff represents himself in this action, as apparently he does in a number of
7 other actions. He has that right, something which I have been at pains to emphasize
8 to him, but his interests might possibly be better served if he had counsel. That is a
9 decision which is for him alone to make, and it may very well be that as he sees
10 things, the retention of counsel would be in appropriate.
Para#3
11 He will have until August 31, 1995, a date which he finds acceptable, after an earlier
12 date was suggested, to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim, failing which
13 the action will be dismissed as against all defendants.
Para#4
14 Should a fresh statement of claim be delivered, and there is to be any motion as to its
15 sufficiency or propriety, the motion should be brought before me if I am available to
16 deal with it, so as to avoid the need for another judge to go through the substantial
17 volume of paper generated even to this point in the litigation.
Para#5
18 In the meantime, in case it is not self-evident from the fact that I have struck out the
19 statement of claim in response to all the motions, no step may be taken against any
20 defendant based on that statement of claim, whether for default of defence or
21 otherwise. Counsel indicated that felt that to state this formally as part of the
22 order would be desirable, and it is only at their specific request that this paragraph is
23 included in my disposition, since I would otherwise have thought it redundant.
Para#6
24 June 16, 1995
25 Autograph of: N. DOUGLAS COO J
11 He will have until August 31, 1995, a date which he finds acceptable, after an earlier
12 date was suggested, to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim, failing which
13 the action will be dismissed as against all defendants.
Para#4
14 Should a fresh statement of claim be delivered, and there is to be any motion as to its
15 sufficiency or propriety, the motion should be brought before me if I am available to
16 deal with it, so as to avoid the need for another judge to go through the substantial
17 volume of paper generated even to this point in the litigation.
Para#5
18 In the meantime, in case it is not self-evident from the fact that I have struck out the
19 statement of claim in response to all the motions, no step may be taken against any
20 defendant based on that statement of claim, whether for default of defence or
21 otherwise. Counsel indicated that felt that to state this formally as part of the
22 order would be desirable, and it is only at their specific request that this paragraph is
23 included in my disposition, since I would otherwise have thought it redundant.
Para#6
24 June 16, 1995
25 Autograph of: N. DOUGLAS COO J
Court File No. Re 6244/96
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
(General Division)
(General Division)
Endorsement:
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation. 935 v. Keyvan Nourhaghighi
Heard: February 15, 1996
PAGE No. 1 ("P#1), Paragraph No. 1 ("para#1"):
Line No. 1 ("1"): This is an Application pursuant to Section 49 of the Condominium Act, R.S.O. 1990.
2: The Condominium seeks an order allowing it right of entry to Unit 608, 456 College
3: Street, Toronto, owned by Keyvan Nourhaghighi. It also seeks an Order that the
4: exercise room and equipment forming part of the common area and located directly
5: over Unit 608, be opened and used by the other Unit owners. Finally, it seeks an
6: order requiring Mr. Nourhaghighi to comply with the nuisance provisions of Rule 7
7: of the Corporation and an order that he list for sale and sell Unit 608.
P#1; para#2:
8: At the commencement of the hearing Mr. Nourhaghighi requested an adjournment
9: on the ground he was not given sufficient time to respond to the applicant's material.
10: The adjournment was refused solely because of the allegation contained in the sworn
11: affidavit of Property Manager that Mr. Nourhaghighi is a danger to others in the
12: building. Mr. Nourhaghighi filed conflicting material and argued the application on
P#2; para#1:
1: his own behalf.
P#2; para#2:
2: The Condominium is located at corner of College and Bathurst Streets in
3: Toronto and consists of 89 residential units and common area. Keyvan
4: Nourhaghighi purchased Unit 608 in March 1991 as a home for his family and lans
5: to continue living there. It is common knowledge that this new complex has
6: experienced serious financial difficulties and changes in management which
7: understandably has created some unrest and apprehension for the unit owners.
P#2; para#3:
8: Keyvan Nourhaghighi has expressed concern over the Statement of Expense9: prepared by the various Property Managers. He has complained consistently of water
10: seeping into his kitchen from the common areas and alleges that the contractors have
11: been unable to locate the source of the problem. He has complained of excessive
12: noise originating from the exercise room directly overhead due to the constant use of
13: heavy exercise machines and the Condominium was found to be in the violation of a city
14: nuisance by-law. Mr. Nourhaghighi has brought numerous court proceedings
15: against the Condominium and others arising out of these complaints.
Line No. 1 ("1"): This is an Application pursuant to Section 49 of the Condominium Act, R.S.O. 1990.
2: The Condominium seeks an order allowing it right of entry to Unit 608, 456 College
3: Street, Toronto, owned by Keyvan Nourhaghighi. It also seeks an Order that the
4: exercise room and equipment forming part of the common area and located directly
5: over Unit 608, be opened and used by the other Unit owners. Finally, it seeks an
6: order requiring Mr. Nourhaghighi to comply with the nuisance provisions of Rule 7
7: of the Corporation and an order that he list for sale and sell Unit 608.
P#1; para#2:
8: At the commencement of the hearing Mr. Nourhaghighi requested an adjournment
9: on the ground he was not given sufficient time to respond to the applicant's material.
10: The adjournment was refused solely because of the allegation contained in the sworn
11: affidavit of Property Manager that Mr. Nourhaghighi is a danger to others in the
12: building. Mr. Nourhaghighi filed conflicting material and argued the application on
P#2; para#1:
1: his own behalf.
P#2; para#2:
2: The Condominium is located at corner of College and Bathurst Streets in
3: Toronto and consists of 89 residential units and common area. Keyvan
4: Nourhaghighi purchased Unit 608 in March 1991 as a home for his family and lans
5: to continue living there. It is common knowledge that this new complex has
6: experienced serious financial difficulties and changes in management which
7: understandably has created some unrest and apprehension for the unit owners.
P#2; para#3:
8: Keyvan Nourhaghighi has expressed concern over the Statement of Expense9: prepared by the various Property Managers. He has complained consistently of water
10: seeping into his kitchen from the common areas and alleges that the contractors have
11: been unable to locate the source of the problem. He has complained of excessive
12: noise originating from the exercise room directly overhead due to the constant use of
13: heavy exercise machines and the Condominium was found to be in the violation of a city
14: nuisance by-law. Mr. Nourhaghighi has brought numerous court proceedings
15: against the Condominium and others arising out of these complaints.
P#2; para#4:
16: Having reviewed the material filed on behalf of the Condominium and by the
17: respondent. I am satisfied that there is no evidence to support the bald allegation of
P#3; para#1:
1: the Property Manager that Mr. Nourhaghighi is a danger to others in the building.
2: There is no Affidavit filed on behalf of the member of the Board of Directors or any
3: unit owner that supports such an allegation. Unquestioningly, he is upset and
4: frustrated. When he purchased the unit in 1991 for his family home, it was
5: reasonable for him to assume that the exercise room located directly above his unit
6: would be soundproof. Surely any structural changes or alterations required to
7: remedy the problem should be carried out primarily in the exercise room. There is
8. nothing in the material to indicate that any serious investigation has taken place in
9. this respect.
P#3; para#2:
10. The applicant has been aware of the issues raised on this Application for a lengthy
11. period of time and in light of the severity of the orders sought I find it unfair that the
12. Application was brought on such short notice. The allegation of dangerous is not
13. supported by the material filed on the Application and tends to put the entire
14. Application into question.
16: Having reviewed the material filed on behalf of the Condominium and by the
17: respondent. I am satisfied that there is no evidence to support the bald allegation of
P#3; para#1:
1: the Property Manager that Mr. Nourhaghighi is a danger to others in the building.
2: There is no Affidavit filed on behalf of the member of the Board of Directors or any
3: unit owner that supports such an allegation. Unquestioningly, he is upset and
4: frustrated. When he purchased the unit in 1991 for his family home, it was
5: reasonable for him to assume that the exercise room located directly above his unit
6: would be soundproof. Surely any structural changes or alterations required to
7: remedy the problem should be carried out primarily in the exercise room. There is
8. nothing in the material to indicate that any serious investigation has taken place in
9. this respect.
P#3; para#2:
10. The applicant has been aware of the issues raised on this Application for a lengthy
11. period of time and in light of the severity of the orders sought I find it unfair that the
12. Application was brought on such short notice. The allegation of dangerous is not
13. supported by the material filed on the Application and tends to put the entire
14. Application into question.
P#3; para#3:
15. The Application is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Keyvan Nourhaghighi
16. fixed in the sum of $300.00 payable forthwith
P#3; para#4:
17. Released March 27, 1996 Autograph: Janet L.
NOTE: Yet August 2005, after several notices the Condo did not pay my Costs! Order was Disobeyed and Exercise Room opened immediately.
The nuisance of water damage referred in Order has been continued until Toxic Moulds developed in my home; to force me to sell my property in half market price.
15. The Application is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Keyvan Nourhaghighi
16. fixed in the sum of $300.00 payable forthwith
P#3; para#4:
17. Released March 27, 1996 Autograph: Janet L.
NOTE: Yet August 2005, after several notices the Condo did not pay my Costs! Order was Disobeyed and Exercise Room opened immediately.
The nuisance of water damage referred in Order has been continued until Toxic Moulds developed in my home; to force me to sell my property in half market price.
M17265
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Her Majesty the Queen-Ontario-Respondent v. Nourhaghighi-Applicant
BEFORE Doherty, Weiler, and Austin JJA
COUNSEL: J.A>Ramsay for the respondent
Keyvan Nourhaghighi in person
HEARD August 2, 1996
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Her Majesty the Queen-Ontario-Respondent v. Nourhaghighi-Applicant
BEFORE Doherty, Weiler, and Austin JJA
COUNSEL: J.A>Ramsay for the respondent
Keyvan Nourhaghighi in person
HEARD August 2, 1996
EMDORSEMENT
Lines#:
1 Assuming the order of the appeal court judge directig a new trial is appealable
2 under s. 131 of Provincial offences Act, we see nobasis upon which to grant leave to
3 appeal. The appeal court judge's exercise of his discretion as to the appropriate order to be
4 made doesnotraise a question oflaw which meets either of the criteria in s. 131 of the
5 Provincial offences Act. The application must be dismissed.
6
7 Autograph: Doherty JA
8 Autograph: K. Weiler JA
9 Autograph Austin JA
10
11 August 15, 1996
1 Assuming the order of the appeal court judge directig a new trial is appealable
2 under s. 131 of Provincial offences Act, we see nobasis upon which to grant leave to
3 appeal. The appeal court judge's exercise of his discretion as to the appropriate order to be
4 made doesnotraise a question oflaw which meets either of the criteria in s. 131 of the
5 Provincial offences Act. The application must be dismissed.
6
7 Autograph: Doherty JA
8 Autograph: K. Weiler JA
9 Autograph Austin JA
10
11 August 15, 1996
NOTE: My application was against Knazan Order for New Trial, after Judge Knazan granted my appeal against the Order of corrupt Justice of Peace Defendant Lewin. I asked in my Notice of Appeal that my appeal be heard as a New Trial and I made few Subpoenas against corrupt Police Defendants Parsons, Pinchin and Haines. However, the adjounment and making Order for New Trial was 'error of law' as I had 'right' under the Provincial offences Act.
IMPORTANT NOTE # 1:
I shall note that it was very difficult for me to serve the Subpoenas to said corrupt Constables, and New Trial Order would put me in a condition to go again through issuance of Subpoenas which is very difficult and serving it which is more difficult by all harassments of Police who are avoiding Subpoenas! I sued the corrupt panel Doherty, Weiler, and Austin in three lawsuits in Provincial and Federal Courts. As they made another oppressive judgment and committed crime against the administration of justice on the same day, in dismissal of my appeal against corrupt White Judge Bigelow's Order who convicted me upon a complaint brought by Police Defendant Parsons. In said appeal hearing corrupt judge Weiler Dissented to the conviction upon a case of law of Supreme court of canada she referred to 'Reasonableness'; but the Court judges did not brought her decent in the judgment, which id giving the automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of canada under S. 691(a) of the Criminal Code: " A person who is convicted of an offence and whose convicton is affirmed by the court of appeal may appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada: (a) on any question of law on which a judge of appeal dissents, (b) or any question of law, if leave to aapeal is granted to the Suprme Court of Canada;
IMPORTANT NOTE #2:
As documents indicate all judgments in Appeal, Application & Motion have signed by all members of the Panel. However, ONLY in one case that there was a 'Dissent' in the Panel, the Corrupt Judge Osborne did not let other members of panel to sign the judgment. Here was my cause of action for frauds in Court of Appeal for Ontario and the corrupt Registrar of Supreme Court of Canada ROLAND.
IMPORTANT NOTE # 1:
I shall note that it was very difficult for me to serve the Subpoenas to said corrupt Constables, and New Trial Order would put me in a condition to go again through issuance of Subpoenas which is very difficult and serving it which is more difficult by all harassments of Police who are avoiding Subpoenas! I sued the corrupt panel Doherty, Weiler, and Austin in three lawsuits in Provincial and Federal Courts. As they made another oppressive judgment and committed crime against the administration of justice on the same day, in dismissal of my appeal against corrupt White Judge Bigelow's Order who convicted me upon a complaint brought by Police Defendant Parsons. In said appeal hearing corrupt judge Weiler Dissented to the conviction upon a case of law of Supreme court of canada she referred to 'Reasonableness'; but the Court judges did not brought her decent in the judgment, which id giving the automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of canada under S. 691(a) of the Criminal Code: " A person who is convicted of an offence and whose convicton is affirmed by the court of appeal may appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada: (a) on any question of law on which a judge of appeal dissents, (b) or any question of law, if leave to aapeal is granted to the Suprme Court of Canada;
IMPORTANT NOTE #2:
As documents indicate all judgments in Appeal, Application & Motion have signed by all members of the Panel. However, ONLY in one case that there was a 'Dissent' in the Panel, the Corrupt Judge Osborne did not let other members of panel to sign the judgment. Here was my cause of action for frauds in Court of Appeal for Ontario and the corrupt Registrar of Supreme Court of Canada ROLAND.
Metro ats Nourhaghighi-Application
Court File No. 97-CV-125773
Endorsement of Mr. Justice Day dated September 16, 1997
# "Number Sign"
#1: This is an application under S.140(4) of the Court of Justice Act. There is absence of objective
#2: independent evidence to support the applicant's position as to events and consequences of
#3: events except (1) Emergency Report St. Michael's Hospital, (2) Prescriptions for Tylenol 2 &
#4: 3 and (3) Report of Dr. Michael Klar. The Emergency Report of St. Michael's Hosp. does not
#5: speak to broken rib or ribs as asserted by applicant. The report of Dr. Klar is consistent with
#6: some force to restrain but not consistent with applicant's claims of gravity. The evidence of
#7: the applicant of injuries is not supported by the objective evidence. The onus is on the
#8: applicant under S.140(4) of the Courts of Justice Act. The facts herein appear to follow the
#9: pattern of previous actions for similar complaints against some of the parties and other public
#10: figures upon which the prohibition order of Wilkins J. is premised. This case falls into the
#11: principals to be applied by Henry J. in Lang Michener v. Fabian 59 OR (2nd) 353@358
#12: adopted by Pardu J. in Sand with v. Zahn 1996 [OJ] 4230. Applying these principals I am
#13: satisfied that the applicant has failed to establish on a balance of probabilities (1) that the
#14: proposed action is not an abuse of process, (2) that there are reasonable grounds for
#15: proceeding.
#16:
#17: Application dismissed.
#18:
#19: Costs to the Respondents on party & party scale to be assessed.
#20:
#21: Day J.
#22:
#23:
#24:
#25: M:\MJC\PREC\NOURHAGHIGHI\APPLICATION.END
No comments:
Post a Comment