Copyright Paul James | Disclaimer

November 11, 2019

October 3, 2019

October 3, 2019

Please reload

RECENT POSTS

Paul Confronts York University

May 18, 2018

1/3
Please reload

FEATURED POSTS

York University President Dr. Mamdouh Shoukri.

March 16, 2017

 

Mark Twain once wrote: “A lie travels half way around the world while the truth is just putting its shoes on”

 

Dear President Shoukri,

 

Today, March 15, 2017, I begin my third and final total starvation hunger strike to confront you and York University one final time on the appalling discrimination, prejudice, and injustice that has been delivered to me over the past eight years.

 

In the event there is no reversal of this circumstance, then I will cease to exist on or about April 10, 2017. I trust you recognize that after “fighting against” the disgraceful treatment I have received from York University, since 2008, I most certainly will not be giving up now. Through your handling of my circumstances, you have set back societal literacy on the stigma of substance addictions a generation... if not more.

 

While I do not want to harm myself or “cease to exist” as a person, in the words of a former Canadian national team player, Chris Williams, and others privy to all the facts and evidence in regards to this matter:

 

“You have no other option. I would do the same”.

 

That is for you, York University and others to now reconcile.

 

If you are unaware of all the evidence, beyond the information provided here, then it is for you to discover through your own due diligence of public records.

 

Annulled Soccer Hall of Fame Status and Renouncing Canadian Citizenship

 

Before I evaporate into another existence, I will be requesting by the latest, March 25, 2017, through the only remaining “bargaining tools” I have at my disposal that:

 

1. The Canadian Soccer Association annul my individual status as a Canadian Soccer Hall of Fame inductee.

 

2. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau renounce my Canadian citizenship.

 

Both decisions will illuminate the disadvantage self-represented applicants face when confronting overt accumulating injustice. I have no bargaining power or leverage in dealing with the discrimination I faced at York University or the collusion of the Canadian judicial system monopolized in this instance by the power and wealth of one law firm who have taken extreme liberty, of a self-represented, socio-economic disadvantaged Canadian citizen; with bona-fide mental disabilities with no regard for ethics, morals, principles, or conflict of interests... as a means to cover-up their own mistakes and errors in this matter, hence their “removal" of original York Respondent counsel Ms. Lisa Constantine after the March 4, 2015 Divisional Court, Judicial Review.

 

President Shoukri, it was you and York University who made the decision to hire the law firm, McCarthy Tétrault, instead of resolving your plain and obvious errors of discrimination with me in private when given the opportunity in 2012 and 2013. And you made this decision with full knowledge of the following facts taken from my request for reconsideration submitted to the HRTO in 2014, a few months after you were sent a report respectfully requesting you to meet with me in person, which you declined.

 

“During the first six weeks as master soccer coach, I assessed, observed, and researched all aspects of the York Soccer Program, including the overall history and the present status. As a result of this observational assessment, a 40-page report was produced and presented to Sport York’s Pat Murray; Sheila Forshaw; and Ken Schildroth.

 

The highlights of the document included, but were not limited to, a soccer excellence account $10,000 in arrears; an inefficiently run soccer fundraising tournament with profits less than $1000; an unpaid bar tab from the men’s soccer team account in excess of $500 (accrued the night before an OUA game in Nippising); a 15 year history of the women’s soccer program with no tangible success at any level; a men’s soccer program not only devoid of success for the previous decade but also, a garnered reputation amongst competing teams for being undisciplined, arrogant, and disrespectful.....

 

Fast forward 6 years to 2009 and the York University soccer program had achieved 6 divisional titles; 4 OUA championships; a national championship; two national coach of the year awards; two national player of the year awards; two national rookie of the year awards; numerous CIS All Canadians; copious individual OUA honours; regular status as having one the best disciplinary records in the OUA and CIS (a complete reversal of the previous decade); a positive excellence fundraising account in the black by $8,000; the development of the largest high school soccer tournament in the province generating a yearly profit in excess of $10,000; a national reputation for having one of the best run soccer programs in the country – both teams were ranked number one in 2007 and 2008 at varying times (never out of national top ten rankings with both teams from 2006 onwards); women’s team recorded an 18-2 season in 2007 one of the best CIS records of all time; and regular national media exposure on television and newsprint, through staff profile”.

 

In addition, my soccer background at the time, included being a two-time inductee into the Canadian Soccer Hall of Fame; former World Cup soccer player and coach; two FIFA World Cup Championships; 2 Olympic Games appearances; B.A. and MBA amongst other significant achievements.

 

During my time at York University, aside from the hard work and success that had been achieved, I was, in spite of extremely difficult health issues, professional and totally ethical in the execution of my job.

 

Your decisions to fight the matter through the court system, expose York University’s values and ethos as not being what you promote to your constituents and to the public through controlled media in regards to mental health and substance addiction. You suggest you care. How can you possibly care, considering your handling of my circumstances?

 

You decided on this course of action not because you were unaware of your guilt and culpability, but instead, because you knew the one year delay for filing a discrimination claim is a systemic barrier for accessing fair social justice and that the judicial system would protect you irrespective of the rules you would break, deceit you would submit and ultimately the harm and damage you would cause to many others through this process.

 

Without stripping myself down of Citizenship and Hall of Fame status, I have no redress on accessing social justice from the deliberate injustice which has been delivered. In addition, there is no firmer way of communicating the abhorrent disdain I feel for the process I have been exposed to... including the incomprehensible behaviour and decisions you and York University have made over the past eight years in my regard.

 

How do you explain that now, in 2017, York University would prefer that I die rather than correct the dreadful decisions you have made and the resulting injustice?

 

In spite of repeated requests from various persons from around the country... for you to intervene in my previous total starvation protest which lasted 186 hours (January/February 2017), you still excused your responsibility. It solidifies the amoral, repugnant approach York University have taken in trying to justify their untenable position as it relates to the discrimination and poor treatment I faced in 2008/09 and throughout the judicial process. This is as unacceptable to me as it would be to any York University student, employee or faculty member past or present, or for that matter, any other Canadian citizen.

 

If you and the Judicial process continue to avoid responsibility, you will need to explain to the Canadian government, Canadians coast to coast, York University students, alumni, faculty, and staff how it is that an academic institution permitted a former Canadian World Cup soccer player and staff member of York University, who gave so much to the institution, to die under such appalling circumstances centred around undeniable deceit and collusion.

 

An Incontestable Fact of Opening Up on Mental Disability

 

From the moment I opened up to persons from York University seeking help and support for my poor mental health in 2008, my rights as a Canadian citizen to be treated equally and fairly and with dignity and respect, have been repeatedly violated and abused by York University, the Judicial system, and the Canadian soccer industry. In spite of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms designating substance use disorders and depression as bona fide mental disabilities, my circumstances before the courts prove unequivocally, the health conditions are either not protected or there has been deliberate collusion to dismiss the claim.

 

It is the latter.

 

President Shoukri, you and others at York University are fully aware of the discrimination I received, your culpability and your covering up of the truth. A number of persons at York University and elsewhere do not have a good conscience. And you know it. And its about to get a whole lot worse.

 

With that consideration in mind how do you justify the following?

 

Deliberate Deceit to Avoid Discrimination Judgement

 

The Human Rights Code and the Canadian courts identify three main areas to determine discrimination claims/arguments. In essence/paraphrased they are:

 

1. Is there a mental disability?

 

2. Did the persons “charged” with discrimination know or have good reason to know there was a mental disability(ies)?

 

3. Did discrimination take place?

 

The answers to these questions in the Paul James discrimination claim before the HRTO and Canadian courts based on the public record evidence are unequivocal:

 

1. YES

2. YES

3. YES.

 

York University, Athletic Director

 

The denial of Jenn Myers and York University that she only thought I was dealing with personal matters/issues is a blatant, corrupt, culpable LIE which the evidence on public record proves beyond any doubt.

 

The LIE and cover-up of the LIE has now caused unfathomable damage.

 

With the LIE however, York University sought to relieve themselves from accountability and responsibility in this matter through the false answer to the question:

 

“Did you know the Applicant suffered mental disabilities?”

 

The answer from York University to this “question” was NO through York’s submissions to the HRTO; an email sent to me from Jenn Myers in February 2012; and in a letter from your in house legal counsel, Susan Silversides, in the spring/summer of 2012, after I approached you to settle the matter privately.

 

In this letter, the York University position suggested all you knew was that I was a successful soccer coach. A dreadful exhibition of deceit and hypocrisy when you consider that three months later, you hire Clara Hughes, the renowned Canadian athlete and humanitarian on mental health disabilities... awarding her an Honorary PHD along with being your key note speaker at the 2012 Fall Convocation ceremonies... giving the public impression you are on the cutting edge of caring about mental disability.

 

If Jenn Myers and York University had told the truth; had respectful values for dealing with errors once made, or if the Judicial process functioned with the integrity all Canadians expect, then justice would have prevailed as York University would have rightly been held accountable. The pain and turmoil of the past 5 years of the judicial system could then have been avoided and I could have moved on with life albeit without being a university soccer coach, my life time passion, I spent a lifetime developing.

 

To be clear: Jenn Myers knew I was unwell and it was a mental disability because I told her at the Rideau Canal in Ottawa on Tuesday, November 4, 2008. The reason York University have been deceitful about your knowledge of my mental disability(ies) is because with such knowledge you were duty bound to investigate my health circumstances, provide support and accommodation and most certainly not to request I formalize my resignation; then devolve my master soccer coach role into two coaching positions; offer the full time men's job to the part-time men’s coach without an interview or any due process; then tell me I can apply for the women's position and my application will only be considered with other applicants.

 

All this before I had even left the institution and three weeks after we had won, on the women's side, our third OUA championship in 5 years and only eight months after I had returned from a 90 day leave of absence with no consideration whatsoever of the dreadful impact on SELF STIGMA on those who suffer substance use disorders and the consequential need to retreat from such painful treatment, harassment and comments delivered to me since 2008. I was, for example, fired from GOL TV within days of my return from rehab in 2009 for no reason. This is the same GOL TV where the York soccer teams were promoted 24/7 for 3 years on camera, until I was fired.

 

President Shoukri, is it not ironic, when you now consider your women’s soccer program have not won an OUA championship on the women’s side since 2009... not even in spite of the overt manipulation of your game schedule in 2015 (cheating), where you sought egregiously unfair advantage by playing four of your regular season Sunday games against opponents who had played on the Saturday while your York team were resting and still, you did not win an OUA championship. In addition, is it not suspect to other Canadians reading this correspondence and to you that while Jenn Myers told me in the fateful December 2009 meeting, that the master soccer coach position was the wrong model as a means to devolve the position, that the same Jenn Myers then hires Carmine Isacco as the new, recreated master soccer coach position in 2011/12.

 

How do you reconcile these facts President Shoukri?

 

Do you see an inter-organizational pattern of discrimination... if you refer to the passage below which I included in my Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada?

 

Mental illness is a leading cause of disability in Canada; People with mental illness and  addictions are more likely to die prematurely than the general population; Mental illness  can cut 10 to 20 years from a person’s life expectancy; The disease burden of mental  illness and addiction in Ontario is 1.5 times higher than all cancers put together and  more than 7 times that of all infectious diseases. This includes years lived with less than  full function and years lost to early death; Individuals with a mental illness are much less  likely to be employed; Unemployment rates are as high as 70% to 90% for people with  the most severe mental illnesses; The economic burden of mental illness in Canada is  estimated at $51 billion per year which includes health care costs, lost productivity, and  reductions in health-related quality of life; Number of people with mental illness  either  turned down for a job for which they were qualified or, if employed,  dismissed or forced to resign once it was known that they had a mental illness: 1 in 3  – 1 in 2; Percentage of Canadian organizations that have no structured process for  supervisors to support employees’ return to work after any illness or disability: 64%

 

You can refer to pages 54-64 of the uploaded 78 page Affidavit  to read a summary which captures York’s behaviour in my regard and the cheating of your soccer program illustrating total disregard for ethics.

 

The Affidavit was sent to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2016. You need to read the document in full so you can experience the outrage I feel for the way I have been treated encapsulated in the Supreme Courts decision to return the documents providing the final layer of a rigged system in my regard.

 

As a Canadian citizen believing in the allocation of justice to all persons irrespective of social class or minority status, I trusted in the HRTO and Canadian court system to filter the LIE submitted by York University from the truth. As illustrated, in part, below, there was overwhelming evidence which supports the truth and exposes the LIE. It is available to the Canadian public through public records. The HRTO system deliberately failed to act on this evidence using deliberately false statements, stereotyped reasoning et al because in getting to the plain and obvious truth, the HRTO would have had to advance the claim to a hearing where York personnel would have categorically been caught out in LIES under oath. The resulting culpability for discrimination would have been inevitable hence the extraordinary lengths the system and certain people have gone to, to cover-up the reality.

 

You knew this, hence the absolute need for the LIE.

 

York University soccer Assistant Coaches Bree Carr-Harris & Jamie Teixeira

 

How do you explain that Jamie Teixeira was deceitful in his testimony, submitted from York University to the HRTO, stating my substance addiction was under control in 2008?

 

Meanwhile, Jamie and Bree Carr-Harris insincerely excommunicated with me, my sister Julie, and my parents in late November 2008 because as they stated to me in an email at the time, I was about to die unless I went to rehab immediately and not two weeks later on December 18, 2008 my scheduled date to do so.

 

Also, President Shoukri, how do you reconcile that York University used testimony from Bree Carr-Harris when she never returned communications from McCarthy Tétrault?

 

My Request for Reconsideration submission documents submitted to the HRTO in 2014 along with 38 appendices of evidence (all on public record), identified, amongst a full accounting of the discrimination claim against York University and the HRTO, Jamie and Bree’s inappropriate actions and overt discrimination which included their refusal to attend our national championship celebration banquet on December 11, 2008, in spite of embarrassing pleads from even my parents for them to do so.

 

169.  The insincere, coercive discriminatory method to get me to attend rehabilitation  immediately, instead of the scheduled date of December 18th, 2008, which they  were aware of, accelerated my paranoia to the harsh detriment of my future health.  It was a dangerous discriminatory action, which was an infringement of my basic  human right of privacy and was done so with particular vindictiveness after I had  temporarily released Jamie from the soccer program and announced sensitively to Bree, there would be no romantic link between us (See Appendix B page 1).

 

171. Jamie and Bree both knew I was scheduled to attend rehab on December 18, 2008;  both knew I was not avoiding going to rehab; both knew my family and I were  desperate for me to get away once I met my York and Television commitments;  and both knew I had to travel to Kingston, Ontario and then Saskatoon,  Saskatchewan in the first 10 days of December, 2008 in order to meet a GOL TV  coaching commitment which had been advertised on national television for 6 months with Canadian international soccer super star Christine Sinclair.

 

172. I communicated through text message to Jamie that once I came home from Saskatoon, I would sit down with him to discuss his status – at which point I would  have outlined my concerns and would have conditioned his continuation with the team on his ongoing respectful attitude towards me. However, while I was away working with Christine Sinclair and GOL TV, Jamie and Bree excommunicated  with me and in doing so, Jamie did not return my text messages.

 

These were statements amongst many others in this regard from the same submissions Justice Sachs at the Divisional Court Judicial Review on March 4, 2015, referenced on public record as outstanding - see below.

 

The selfish immature behaviour of my two assistant coaches, who prior to my pronouncement to them about my health, were terrific and so respectful and thoughtful in their actions towards me. It illustrates, the dreadful impact of stigma on persons with substance use disorders. It permits others to take extraordinary advantage of your circumstances. York University have been complicit in this for the past 8 years.

 

Excerpt from Memorandum of Argument Sent to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2016 which integrated previous evidence already on the Public Record.

 

14. Discrimination of Applicant’s Mental Disabilities: In early April 2008, two assistant soccer coaches at York University – Bree Carr-Harris and Jamie Teixeira – were informed of Applicants poor mental health, including depression, anxiety and a substance use disorder to crack cocaine as confirmed in “notes” from Dr. Steve Melemis; Applicant’s sister Julie (and parents) in her written testimonial letter; Dwight Hornibrook’s testimonial letter, Applicants testimony and Respondent submissions.

 

15. End of November 2008, Bree Carr-Harris and Jamie Teixeira insincerely excommunicated with Applicant and Applicants family refusing to attend the York University soccer banquet on December 11, 2008, as a punitive, discriminatory method aimed at forcing Applicant into drug rehabilitation earlier than his December 18, 2008 departure date, confirmed in written testimony from Applicants family, Dwight and Chris Hornibrook and Applicant himself. Dwight Hornibrook testified why the punitive approach was taken, “We decided to excommunicate with Paul in a desperate coercive measure to force him into treatment immediately. What I was unaware of at the time of conversing with Jamie and Bree in late November of 2008, is that each of them had a hidden agenda on excommunicating with Paul not just because of his health. Jamie had been temporarily released from the York soccer program because he consistently treated Paul differently since he learned of his poor health back in the spring of 2008 and Bree, because she was extremely hurt that a romantic relationship with Paul was not going to become a reality”.

 

16. The damage psychologically to Applicant as a consequence of the actions of his assistant coaches was immense, not limited to isolation, embarrassment, humiliation and anxiety as other people speculated about what was happening to the York University women’s soccer coach. Had Bree and Jamie not known of Applicants ill health or if Applicants ill health was cancer, it is unreasonable to conclude they would have excommunicated with him as a method to “assist his ill health” irrespective of any professional or personal feedback which they were uncomfortable receiving.

 

17. York University Athletic Director, Ms. Jenn Myers, was told by Applicant of his poor mental health in the first week of November 2008 - “When I wake up in the morning and you may see blue sky, I only see grey clouds” - and his need for three months leave of absence which Ms. Jenn Myers granted while stating she would need to inform the Employee Wellness Office of his circumstance and that at some point Applicant would be required to provide a Doctor’s note.

 

18. Yvonne Simpson from the Employee Wellness Office at York University contacted Applicant through a letter dated February 11, 2009, confirming Ms. Myers knowledge of Applicants poor mental health and her communications with the Employee Wellness Office. In the letter, Ms. Simpson states, “Our office has been advised that you have been absent from work since December 19, 2008...Please have your treating practitioner complete the enclosed Practitioners Report”.

 

19. Applicant’s MD of 30 years completed the York University PRAL form and sent it to the Employee Wellness Office at York dated February 27, 2009 with the written information that Applicant suffered “acute stress reaction” (the number one cause of diagnostic substance addictions) and that Applicant required further support. For the remainder of Applicants employment at York University, he received no support or inquiry from the Employee Wellness Office or Jenn Myers as to his health and well-being as admitted to in Respondent submissions.

 

20. Applicants correspondence from Ms. Yvonne Simpson substantiates Ms. Myers knowledge of Applicants poor mental health and exposes her deceitful testimony in the Respondents submissions and in her email to Applicant on February 8, 2012, where she states, "It is very unfortunate that I have not been able to find the time to meet with you in person, for that I apologize... I am truly sorry if you feel there has been a lack of support...Rightly or wrongly, based on our conversations, I drew the conclusion that you needed to deal with personal issues, and that you wanted some distance between yourself and the program. Without much more information it was the only conclusion I could come to. I see now that this was not correct and that is unfortunate” ...Jenn.

 

21. May 2009, shortly after Applicant was released from his GOL TV contract for “no reason”, Bree Carr-Harris who worked full time for MLSE’s Toronto FC, through a second excommunication, discriminated against Applicant, again because Applicant could not reciprocate a romantic relationship with her. Ms. Carr-Harris unfortunately, never returned communications or professionally informed York University of her sudden departure punishing, isolating and humiliating Applicant further.

 

22. In late September 2009, Applicant – distressed at the accumulating discrimination and poor treatment he was receiving as a consequence of York University personnel knowing of his mental disability – called athletic director stating he was going to reluctantly resign his position at the end of the season as a means to alert Jenn Myers and York University that he was in need of help and support, not harassment. Two weeks later, athletic director requested Applicant formalize his resignation without any inquiry, assistance, help or support to Applicant.

 

23. December 2009. Applicant returning after only 17 days of rehab to meet a speaking obligation for history department at York University, subsequently contacted athletic director and executive director at Sport York, requesting a meeting to discuss his health and employment. Entering Sport York offices on December 8, 2009, Applicant was harassed by Gillian McCullough from Sport York, "Jenn hopes you have your head screwed on straight this time". A few minutes later Applicant was told by Jenn Myers in front of Sheila Forshaw, that his master soccer coaching position was devolved; Carmine Issaco was being hired as the full time men’s soccer coach; while Applicant could apply for the women's position and his application would only be considered with other applicants. Applicant, humiliated and numb at the undignified treatment and discrimination, left the Sport York offices and departed the university on December 31, 2009.

 

24. In November 2011, Applicant contacted Jenn Myers and Sheila Forshaw from Sport York to schedule a meeting to discuss the poor treatment Applicant had received during his tenure at York University. A meeting was avoided by both persons.

 

25. Based on the evidence that was submitted to the Tribunal and lower courts, it is patently unreasonable for Justice Edwards to have written in point three of his decision rationale, “Eventually, the depression and other physical and medical consequences of such an addiction resulted in Mr. James resigning from his position at York in December 2009”, fraudulently disseminating that Applicant was not discriminated against which was overtly deceitful based on the overwhelming evidence before the court which contradicted its use. Any right minded Canadian citizen privy to all the evidence would conclude that Justice Edwards – acting in bad faith – stereotyped, discriminated, and punished Applicant and Applicants claim throughout his decision rationale to unfairly justify the claim being dismissed at the Divisional Court and beyond. The specific deceitful statement in question used by Justice Edwards to inappropriately rule on the merits of the case facilitated the agenda of dismissing Applicants claim through “unscrupulous reasoning" which could be sold onto Canadian society already conditioned to the War on Drugs ideology that persons with substance use disorders should leave their employment.

 

26. The patently unreasonable statement by Justice Edwards also conveniently facilitated avoidance of consideration of the psychological harm which was inflicted onto Applicant as a consequence of the plain and obvious discrimination he faced at York University because of his mental disability. This thwarts progress on improving the lives of other Canadians facing similar health conditions and similar discrimination and prejudicial experiences.

 

27. Applicant did not depart York University because he wanted to lose his $80,000 a year soccer coaching job; never to coach again; write a humiliating E-book with the potential of making a pittance; and to publicly be open about his substance use of the worlds most stigmatized drug, after 30 years of coaching and a lifetime involvement in the sport with no plan for the future, to become unemployed with no unemployment, medical or dental insurance and nowhere to go as a result. It is non-sensical to conclude this, not only from all the evidence before the court but also when considering that the most important social determinants of health and recovery encompass employment, affordability for treatment and good support.

 

28. The reason Applicant divulged his poor mental health to others in the first place was because he needed support to regain good health and to continue his soccer employment. Applicant did not want to lose his soccer career which was firmly established through Applicant submissions and testimonial evidence from his sister, parents, Dwight and Chris Hornibrook, James West from the Sporting Chance Clinic in England, and Ruben Baler from the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Applicant was not encouraged to stay at York University in spite of his pedigreed soccer background and significant contributions to the York soccer programs success because the institution did not want him there because of his poor mental health. The poor treatment, discrimination, harassment, excommunication and non-support of his health circumstances were the reasons for Applicants departure.

 

Divisional Court Judicial Review March 4, 2015

 

The following paraphrased statements are taken from the public record, reporting on the judicial hearing which took place at the Divisional Court of Ontario, in Toronto, March 4, 2015.

 

How do you explain the subsequent injustice to these statements, President Shoukri?

 

Respondent Counsel Lisa Constantine:

 

“Of course we are all saddened by Mr James’s circumstances. It is a real tragedy”

 

Justice Sachs Chair of Judicial Hearing:

 

“Counsel, don’t go there. Just don’t go there!

 

Applicant Paul James:

 

“The real tragedy and sadness is how my mental health circumstances have been treated by York University and Canadian society”.

 

Counsel Lisa Constantine:

 

“Mr James’ copious submissions in his request for reconsideration should have been provided earlier”

 

Justice Hambly:

 

“Counsel, have you not considered that Mr James was still dealing with his health circumstances and had difficulty functioning?”

 

Justice Sachs:

 

“No counsel!! What Mr. James is saying is that the one year delay for filing a discrimination claim is a systemic barrier which prevents fair social access to justice for persons with mental disabilities”.

 

Justice Sachs concluding statement:

 

“Mr. James your oral and written submissions to the court are outstanding. You are an excellent advocate for your cause and for others facing similar circumstances”

 

Judicial Decision on June 23, 2015.

 

Discrimination claim was dismissed by Justice Edwards. The decision rationale included in point three, the following statement which was inappropriate, deceitful, prejudicial and discriminatory based on the evidence before the court . Also, ruling on the merits of the case without a hearing was an unscrupulous decision for the Justice to make but he did so in order to prejudice the claim moving forward guaranteeing its dismissal without integrity from the higher courts.

 

“Tragically, Mr James with such a pedigreed soccer background succumbed to the vicious grip of a substance addiction to crack cocaine. Eventually, depression and other medical consequences resulted in Mr. James resigning from his position at York University”.

 

Justice Edwards deliberately failed to add a comma along with,

 

“because of the discrimination, harassment, lack of support and poor treatment he received at the institution”.

 

His decision to not include the important omitted words was fraudulent based on the overwhelming evidence before the court which let York University and others off the hook for the appalling discrimination and prejudice they delivered to me as a person and as the claim moved forward. It also permitted the media (National Post) to damage my circumstances and future prospects even further with complete impunity. The statement by Justice Edwards was devastating.

 

President Shoukri you can use the link below....

 

http://www.confrontingthestigmaofdrugaddiction.com/single-post/2017/03/06/Dear-Anne-Marie-Owens-Chief-Editor-National-Post-News-Outlet

 

....to review the public letter to Anne Marie Owens, the Chief Editor of the National Post, which was amended today, with the following paragraph:

 

After all, how do you explain that the Chief Justice did not recuse herself from reviewing my leave to appeal file in May of 2016, when there was a clear apprehension of bias (conflict of interest) based on the facts that:

 

A. Partner of McCarthy Tétrault, Malcolm Mercer is listed as staff member at the York University Faculty of Law.

 

B. October 16, 2011, Osgoode Law School Unveiling of Donor Wall and Guest Student Interview. In 2013 York professor in the Globe and Mail quoted, "Ideally she would like to minimize controversy and leave a significant legacy", says Bruce Ryder, a constitutional law expert at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School. “She picks her battles accordingly".

 

C. The Chief Justice's previous two legal assistants now work for McCarthy Tétrault - York's legal counsel - and did so in 2015/16.

 

Moving forward to the Ontario Court of Justice and the Supreme Court of Canada Justice Edwards’ sentence prejudiced the claim beyond repair even though I vigorously contested its inappropriateness in court submissions. This overtly discriminated against my claim and myself as a person harming my future prospects of employment even more.

 

Court of Appeal for Ontario Dismissal

 

Below is the two page letter I sent to the Court of Appeal for Ontario which sums up the continued appearance of collusion. Justice Gillese, the key note speaker at Queens University Law in 2014, formerly worked for McCarthy Tétrault, who sponsored the event in which Malcolm Mercer a partner of McCarthy Tétrault and faculty at York University attended.

 

Justice Gillese delivered the dismissal of the claim behind closed doors, with no explanation and awarded costs to York University of $1,000 in spite of her knowledge of my poor socio-economic status, mental disabilities, poor health and unemployment with the knowledge that both Applicant and Respondent requested no costs. The decision to awards costs against me was a breach of the judicial code of conduct which was meant to intimidate me from pursuing the claim any further.

 

In the words of a former York University student athlete, it was an unbelievable, sickening act.

 

November 19, 2015

 

Dear Ms. Alison Warner,

 

This letter of concern is in reference to claim number: M45298

 

On Friday November 6, 2015 I received the endorsement from the court on a motion for a Leave to Appeal of a Divisional Court decision pertaining to the Human Rights claim I submitted to the HRTO against Respondent, York University, in the autumn of 2012.

 

As quoted and signed by the Honourable Judges Eileen Gillese, Gladys Pardu, and David Watt, the following message was sent to me via email correspondence. ”Leave to Appeal is denied with costs to Respondent York University fixed at $1,000 all inclusive".

 

This decision was made in spite of the Respondents own submission, requesting for the motion to be dismissed, without costs.

 

While I respect that the Honourable Judges have the ultimate authority to make decisions in matters before the Court, the Judges endorsement to not only dismiss the claim but to also further "punish" a self-represented Applicant through the awarding of costs to the Respondent is as distressing as it is inappropriate, highlighting unreasonableness and a lack of understanding.

 

This incident also brings into question the ethical accountability of this process as the decision to dismiss the claim awarding costs to Respondent creates, similar to the National Post article referenced below, an illusion in the public eye that the serious matter before the Court was frivolous and had no merit.

 

The three Honourable Judges from the Court of Appeal would have been privy, not limited to, the following important facts:

 

1. Socioeconomic status of Applicant is low income (below poverty line) including ongoing unemployment, no assets et al.

 

2. In the previous ruling of the Divisional Court Justice Edwards inappropriately and unfairly ruled on the merits of the case when it was not the issue before the court and when no evidence existed to substantiate his statement and in spite of submitted evidence which proved discrimination had categorically taken place while I was an employee at York University. As a result of this action by Justice Edwards a defamatory National Post newspaper article was written and published against the Applicant and claim.

 

3. Comprehensive, thorough and compelling evidence on Applicants life circumstances from 2008 when I sought support for ill health until the present day, highlighting a clear miscarriage of justice in the decisions of the HRTO and Divisional Court.

 

4. Errors in applying case law by the HRTO and Divisional Court in dismissing the medical evidence of social worker Linda Perlis.

 

5. Deceitful testimony from, not limited to, Jenn Myers Athletic Director of York University, Carmine Isacco the master soccer coach at York University, "testimony" from Bree Carr-Harris in spite of the fact she had never communicated with Respondent's legal counsel, and Jamie Teixeira.

 

6. Denial from York University that they knew about my ill health during my tenure at York University in spite of the fact they had official documentation from my doctor in February 2009 amongst a myriad of people, both students and staff, who knew of my ill health.

 

In consideration of the aforementioned, how does the Court of Appeal process justify the following selection of two of three Judges to rule on the motion, when the principles of practice outlined by the Canadian Judicial Council as guidelines for the appropriate conduct of Judges and the administration of their cases focuses on impartiality, bias, conflict of interest, and integrity?

 

1. Assignment of the Honourable Justice Eileen Gillese to this matter when she previously worked for McCarthy Tétrault - the law firm of Respondent counsel.

 

2. Assignment of the Honourable Gladys Pardu - appointed by Peter Mackay former Conservative party member in 2013 whose hard line 'War on Drugs' approach towards the criminalization of all aspects of drug policy has harmed irrevocably many Canadian lives.

 

The benchmark standard of accountability as outlined by the Canadian Judicial Council, is established by what the general public would consider as reasonable, fair, impartial, and honest conduct of Judges. It is my position that considering all the evidence made available to the Court, the general public would find the decision and administration of this matter to be unreasonable, unfair, and incorrect.

 

The assignment of two of the three Judges to review this particular claim infringes on the guidelines espoused by the Canadian Judicial Council and brings into question the conduct of this process including Respondent counsel's "willingness" to forgo "costs" which now can only be considered as disingenuous.

There are no words to describe the pain and anger I feel as a consequence of the process and decisions of the Court.

 

Paul James

 

The Supreme Court of Canada

 

Our supposed, most treasured institution.

 

How do you account President Shoukri, that the 78 page Affidavit, along with my Memorandum of Argument were returned to me by the Supreme Court of Canada in my request for the honourable court to reconsider the unfair dismissal of my Leave to Appeal Application on May 12, 2016.

 

In particular, how do you reconcile the first 30 pages of the document outlining the outrageous behaviour of the Supreme Court of Canada in their administration of my leave to appeal claim back in January, 2016 through May 12, 2016?

 

How do explain that the Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin did not recuse herself from my file knowing the plain and obvious conflict of interests with the relationships which had been developed over the years with York University and McCarthy Tétrault?

 

York University are responsible for putting the Chief Justice in such a position and at a time of impending retirement after an esteemed career.

 

How can this happen?

 

Perhaps President Shoukri as you read all the documents on public record and the ones I have provided to you, you will gain a greater appreciation for my circumstances and why I can say without reservation that I ashamed to be living as a Canadian citizen.

 

There is no moving forward for me without Justice and even with it now after 8 years of abuse, it will never take away the disturbing way you as President of York University and your colleagues have handled this matter. You truly should hold your heads in shame. You have ruined a soccer career and harmed many other persons in the process. And its about to get far worse without appropriate resolution.

 

Please note, the Memorandum of Argument and the 78 page Affidavit, will be released on our website for you and the general public to read followed shortly, by my Leave to Appeal application and all the relevant evidence as it pertains to this matter from 2012-2017. The transparency which York University and the judicial process have avoided at all costs expose York University’s regrettable approach right up till the end.

 

Below are the final three statements from the 78 page Affidavit.

 

85. Over the past four years I have been dumbfounded by how determined the Canadian legal system is in gatekeeping self-represented applicants from receiving justice where justice is warranted and at all costs irrespective of ethics or principles, or standards which should be followed and respected including conflict of interests. The Canadian or any legal system should facilitate first and foremost justice between people and not simply be a “Wild, Wild, West” arena in which lawyers make their careers through whatever means they deem necessary in order for wealthy corporations to resolve their disputes between each other. My case before the honourable court is a profound example of how destructive the Canadian legal system can be on one Canadian citizen.

 

86. At this time I am ashamed to be living as a Canadian citizen in a country with so much comparative wealth and advantage on a global basis, yet fails so miserably when taking care of the health of their citizens and especially disadvantaged citizens suffering substance use disorders who, to add to their indignity have no realistic legal recourse for protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I also feel ashamed to have ever represented Canada as a nation both as a soccer player and as a soccer coach, arenas where in the battle of competitive international sport you feel you are representing every Canadian citizen as if your life depended on it. I was always proud to wear and represent the Canadian shirt because I believed that we were, along with our wealth and abundance of natural resources, also a fair, just, non-corrupt nation. It has proven to be a disturbing illusion.

 

87. At 52 years of age, a period when I should be contemplating retirement, I start my life again from nothing with an array of debilitating impediments. There are no words which can adequately express the rage I feel inside, perhaps best summed up by Dr Rogan Taylor from the University of Liverpool who being privy to my full life circumstances questions, “what kind of society do you live in over there that permits this to happen” as outlined in my November 2013 Report to you, President Shoukri. (See Exhibit I).

 

Finally as you wind up your tenure as President of York University through, to quote your communications department, “a celebration”, I would like you to consider and then justify to York University faculty, students, and alumni, the aforementioned circumstances and actions of your institution in my regard and the consequences they have had on my life. These facts which you cannot write, talk, manipulate or legislate your way out of anymore, should balance the patting on the back from your colleagues and instead shed light on York’s promotions and advocacy for speaking openly about poor mental health. With consideration of this do you not see a problem with how you, York University, the CIS (President and CEO) Graham Brown, McCarthy Tétrault and the Judicial system have treated Paul James and his circumstances including the ultimate ignoring of the total hunger strike protests. There are no adequate words to describe the repulsion of York University’s collective decisions and behaviours in my regard since 2008.

 

Any reasonably minded Canadian citizen will agree with this reality.

 

You know your guilt. Unfortunately, for your institution and the CIS, it will be a lasting stain without correction and accountability.

 

Paul James