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

Part One of Letter of Appeal to The Nine Supreme Court of Canada Justices

May 25, 2019

 
 
Dear:  The Right Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Richard Wagner 
Honourable Supreme Court of Canada Justices
Supreme Court of Canada  Registrar 

 

With consideration of this communication and prior documentation I am requesting the honourable Supreme Court of Canada now address/review/correct the (Paul J) James vs York University matter expeditiously.

 

Preface

 

The matter addressed here concerns the (Paul J) James vs York University human rights discrimination claim.  Docket Number (#36795).  

 

Please note part of this correspondence is an abbreviated recap of a prior communication sent May 16th, 2019. 

 

Attached once again.  

  • 78 Page Supreme Court of Canada Summer 2016

  • 10 Page Memorandum of Argument Summer 2016

  • 20 Page Leave To Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada January 5, 2016

  • Document Links:

  • The following website www.confrontingthestigmaofdrugaddiction.com spanning now  two and a half year is evidence of the commitment of Paul J James and his supporters in seeking social justice based on Truth in this matter which is of such national importance - a prerequisite of the honourable courts  decision to accept Leave to Appeal applications.

 

Video Links: 

 

Past Commitment of the Former Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Beverley McLachlin. 

 

In the past the former Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, on public record, has stated, to paraphrase, 

 

"The honorable court does in fact make mistakes.  We are not perfect.  And when we are confronted with errors of injustice committed by the honourable court we seek to expeditiously  correct them" 

 

It is on the basis of three procedural errors that the James vs York University file MUST be permitted to be returned and reviewed by one Supreme Court of Canada Justice.  Failure to provide this channel of review in the James vs York University human rights discrimination claim based on mental disability will relegate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada and the whole Canadian Judicial process as being redundant and futile of the honorable courts procedures in administering, adjudicating and applying the rule of law for ALL Canadian citizens.   

 

The only reasonable way for the Canadian Public to be assured Paul J James and the James vs York University file was adjudicated equally and fairly is for the claim to be reviewed by one Supreme Court of Canada Justice which is the right of any Canadian citizen before the honourable court.

 

Error Number One: Supreme Court of Canada Administrative Certifying Error  

 

The honourable court errors committed against the  James vs York University human rights discrimination claim are not  complicated when one reviews the administration and adjudication of the file at the Supreme Court of Canada

 

Taken from attached (submitted) Supreme Court of Canada Affidavit: 

 

"On January 4 (electronic copy) and 5 (hard copy) 2016, I submitted my leave for appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada. In doing so my partner Ashley and I requested, through phone calls to the administrative branch of the court if my Application was deficient in any way. The court (Pascal) unfairly stated no and announced on January 5, 2016 through SCC website that certificate had been approved followed by written confirmation that application had been completed on January 6/7, 2016 as communicated via the SCC website. Two months later, I was informed by the court (Pascal) that my application was in fact deficient, delaying the application process by two months which now required an amended application and a motion for an extension of time. In providing further humiliating documentation to the court, the privacy on my health was once again infringed upon as a consequent of the inappropriate actions of the administrative branch of the SCC who knew of the applications deficiency on January 4/5 because the error of applying for leave from the Divisional Court of Ontario instead of the Ontario Court of Appeal appeared in the incorrect writing of six capitalized words not only on the front cover of my submitted documents but also on pages 1, 3, 7 and 9. It is patently unreasonable for any Canadian citizen to conclude this was merely an innocent error by the administration of the SCC.

 

Error Number Two: Supreme Court of Canada Case Summary Prejudicial Error    

 

Monday May 9, 2016 a Supreme Court Case Summary on the James vs York University human rights discrimination claim was delivered to the world three days prior to the Leave to Appeal judgement.  It included the following:  

 

"At the completion of his soccer career, Mr. James was employed as the master soccer coach of the York University Varsity Soccer Program. Mr. James was a distinguished soccer player who represented Canada at the World Cup and the Olympics. Depression and other physical and medical consequences of an addiction to crack cocaine resulted in him resigning from his position at York University in December 2009".

 

The second bold sentence is a false, prejudicial, discriminatory closed statement with no room for interpretation beyond what it states, delivered originally by Justice Edwards at the Divisional Court of Ontario in his June 2015 decision rationale which did not match the evidence before the court.  The false sentence, also, unlawfully, ruled on the merits of the case which was not before the court which in turn triggered the National Post newspaper to write as its headline three days after Justice Edwards' bad faith decision rationale the following stigmatized defamation which corruptly absolved York University and the Human Rights Tribunal process of responsibility and accountability.

 

“Former Olympian who resigned from York University over crack use, fails to prove he was discriminated against.”

 

These actions of the  Divisional Court of Ontario, the National Post, the Ontario Court of Appeal - who failed to correct Justice Edwards error - and the Supreme Court of Canada were grossly unfair, unequal, prejudicial, defamatory, prejudicial  and discriminatory of the human rights of Paul J James.

 

Added significance was Justice Edwards reference in his decision rationale from 2015 that "Mr James succumbed to the vicious grip of an addiction to crack cocaine" which contradicted the previous judgement of the HRTO adjudicator Paul Aterman that I should have been able to submit application within the one year delay period for filing discrimination claims.   

 

It also catered to the stereotype of an erroneously conditioned Canadian society that substance addiction is an illness/disease with no medical cure and that persons "must/leave" their employment.  A catastrophic error for the health and well being of any society looking to improve their incidence of substance disabilities in a more humane, positive and productive way. 

 

What the evidence before the honourable and lowers courts clearly outlined was that Paul J James among incremental poor treatment including excommunication, resigned at York University because he was requested to formalize his resignation by the Athletic Director of Sport York who knew of his mental disability and previous request for leave of absence because he had not been "well for some time".  The Athletic Director who had informed the Employee Wellness Office at York University of Paul J James' leave of absence and requested a doctors note from Paul himself - had a responsibility to investigate the Paul J James circumstance in the fall of 2009 and provide support and accommodation.  

 

York University unequivocally failed in their responsibility to an employee whom had been highly successful, professional and pedigreed for their institution over a six year period - the architect of unprecedented success.  In addition to the absurdity of Justice Edwards unlawful false statement ruling on the merits of the case York University had lied in their submissions, the AD stating she thought Paul J James was just dealing with personal matters, denying she knew anything of my mental disability and poor health.

 

The Case Summary statement in question  "Depression and other physical and medical consequences of an addiction to crack cocaine resulted in him resigning from his position at York University in December 2009"  communicated to anyone who read the "not open to interpretation sentence beyond what it states", that the file was going to be dismissed because the false ruling on the merits of case stated unequivocally to the reader that no discrimination took place at York University.  This was egregiously prejudicial, unfair and unequal treatment.  It was also an obstruction of justice.

 

Supreme Court of Canada Justices have unfettered licence to make their decisions on whether to grant or dismiss claims before the court without public explanations.  Rightly or wrongly the guideline is the same for all files before the court.  

 

The sentence in question from the Case Summary however, communicated to the world why the James vs York University file was going to be dismissed which was false.  Meanwhile  no other files were treated in the same prejudicial manner where a court explanation was communicated and disseminated as to why it was dismissed or granted appeal.  It was an egregious error.   It was an egregiously false sentence based on the evidence before the court.  

 

On Tuesday May 17, 2016 I received the following email from the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada:

 

"Good afternoon, This will confirm that the case summary has been revised to remove the sentence to which you have objected. The summary is available on our website. I can confirm that the summary was not sent to the judges. As we previously advised you, these summaries are prepared as public information only. You are welcome to consult any documents in the case file but copies of any memorandums or notes prepared for judges for use in their deliberations are not public".

 

The Case Summary however, was revised to remove the sentence not just because I objected to it but because it was wrong, prejudicial and discriminatory.    It was removed after the fact and had already communicated to the world why the file was dismissed.

 

On Thursday May 19, 2016 after further investigation the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, again replied:

 

"I can only repeat the information given to you previously. Memorandums or notes prepared for judges for use in their deliberations in relation to judicial proceedings before the Court are not public. Accordingly, we cannot comment further".

 

Knowing the same SCC Law Branch who prepared the Case Summary are the same SCC Law Branch/Lawyer who provide Supreme Court justices m

 emorandums and notes including their recommendations on whether to dismiss and/or grant claims before the court it is reasonable to conclude the prejudicial sentence would have been included in their communications to the Supreme Court Chief Justice at the time Beverley McLachlin who was selected to adjudicate the James vs York University file

 

Whether the Supreme Court of Canada Law Branch did or did not include the prejudicial sentence or recommend for the file to be dismissed - the courts procedural guidelines do not permit them to communicate to the Canadian Public the answer.  On this basis, the Canadian public can never be assured whether the James vs York University claim was adjudicated equally and fairly based on their errors and the resulting ingrained negative perceptions.  

 

On the contrary based on the evidence which is available to the Canadian public it is clear  the administration were, at a bare minimum, incompetent in their handling of the James vs York University file which denied Paul J James fair equal treatment while absolving York University and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario of responsibility and accountability for their appalling bad faith behaviour. 

    

Error Number Three:  

 

The former Right Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada - Ms Beverley McLachlin - was assigned to the James vs York University file.  With consideration that the honourable justice previous two Law Branch Lawyers went on to be employed by McCarthy Tetrault the law firm used by York University during this period, threads doubt in the minds of reasonably minded Canadian citizens of a potential apprehension of bias.

Statements of Clarity:  James vs York University Human Rights Discrimination Claim

 

"History will judge 'reckless, even criminal' politicians, humanitarians, media, the Canadian Judicial process and other Canadian citizens and organizations who have unashamedly and irresponsibly ignored/hidden/corrupted the truth of the James vs York University human rights discrimination claim before the Canadian courts. 

 

As disturbing, the resulting quagmire of an inadequate system, is currently being stoked and fueled by an inadequate Canadian Judicial system and process which turns a blind eye to social injustices far too often and refuses to hold those accountable  for discrimination and prejudicial practices based on metal disability consistently but rather arbitrarily - when they choose to - which further conditions, socializes and permits non-affected Canadian citizens to ostracize, isolate and harm those in need of unconditioned realistic support which, first and foremost, must be a persons right to be employed most appropriately in their lifetime passions.  

 

Links: Highlighting the Law and Arbitrary Nature of Applying the Law

This seemingly impenetrable institutional ethos of arbitrary-accountability has been killing Canadian citizens on a grand scale for decades.  

 

And the Paul J James human rights discrimination claim before the Canadian courts is a profound representation of just how inhumane, corrupt and depraved the Canadian system can be in regards to a persons mental disability establishing such persons can have no enforceable human rights protection even against such incontestable overt discrimination which has been the case in the James vs York University matter, at every level of the system including through the Canadian Judiciary up to and through the Supreme Court of Canada process.  

 

The truth in the Paul J James matter, substantiates unequivocally the unlawful systemic STIGMATIZATION which can be delivered onto those whom suffer the misfortune and indignity of having an exposed diagnosed substance/mental disability.  

 

This total disregard of a persons human right to be treated equally and fairly and with dignity and respect irrespective of any known mental disability - as illuminated in the Paul J James matter - delivers devastating consequences not only onto the victim but in turn, onto every layer of Canadian society.   

 

If substance disability discrimination and prejudice are permitted to continue unabated/arbitrarily the unlawful approach will continue to deliver escalated economic and social carnage and appalling, ongoing preventable human suffering.  As if, it is not bad enough, already.

 

If the James vs York University human rights discrimination claim is not permitted to be expeditiously returned to the Supreme Court of Canada to be reviewed by one Supreme Court Justice it will confirm the Canadian Judicial process has been and can be intentionally and unlawfully rigged from start to finish in order to deliberately prevent fair access to social justice with complete impunity.  

 

The James vs York University human rights discrimination claim should be permitted to go back to the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis  the honorable Court erred in its procedures while administering/adjudicating the James vs York University file at the time it was "live" at the honorable court in 2016.  

 

With consideration of the courts procedural errors no Canadian citizen can be assured that the James vs York University file was treated equally and fairly through the honorable courts process which is an infringement of Section 15 of the the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it relates to the human rights of Paul J James.   

 

While the oppressors of justice could feebly try to claim the file may have been adjudicated equally and fairly, the honorable court unequivocally cannot, under their own procedural guidelines, provide the necessary evidence to the Canadian public which would substantiate the file was administered and adjudicated responsibly, competently, equally and fairly.  

 

On the contrary as this correspondence and the attached Paul J James 2016 Affidavit to the Supreme Court of Canada establishes the honourable court are in fact delinquent in responsibility, competence, equality and fairness as it relates to the Paul J James file, Docket Number (#36795).  

 

Challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada Nine Justices.

 

Please consider the following two assertions from the Right Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:

 

"All Canadians should have Trust and Faith in the Canadian Judicial System"

 

Should They?  

 

Should ALL Canadians have Trust and Faith in the Canadian Judicial System?  

 

Should average hard working down to earth Canadian citizens have faith in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

 

Should my father and mother, sister Julie and my nephew Tristan James have faith in the Canadian Judicial System?    

 

Should the Paul J James supporters have faith in the Canadian Judicial system?  Based on the treatment of the James vs York University claim before the Canadian Courts? 

 

Is it fair for Respondent Counsels to submit egregiously false Testimony on a main thread of Discrimination without any correction of the Canadian Judicial system for over a period of seven years against a disadvantaged Canadian citizen whom had represented the organisation -York University who discriminated against him - with such dignity and respect in spite of mental disability.  Is that to be respected?  Should Canadians trust in a Canadian Judicial system and Canadian media who have taken extreme outrageous advantage of an already disadvantaged Canadian citizen in such a depraved manner?  Who have sat back and willfully obstructed justice and instead have jeopardized the persons health and well being, the stress in his life and the elevated uncertainty?  The homelessness?  The humiliation?  The indignity?  Should average Canadian citizens respect such a system?

 

"The Canadian Charter of a Rights and Freedoms cannot pick and choose when it is applied" 

 

Can the Supreme Court of Canada pick and choose when the Canadian Charter of a Rights and Freedoms is applied?  

 

Do you as the Supreme Court of Canada in fact pick and choose when the Canadian Charter of a Rights and Freedoms is applied?   

 

 

"Truthfulness is so precious in today's World it should be Treasured and Celebrated".  

Barbara Streisand, Oscar Ceremonies 2019  

 

Labeling, defining and categorizing substance dependence as an illness/disease is wrong.   Aside from being nonsensical to, most especially, the lay person, it has never been proven or validated scientifically.  Yet, the irresponsible political propaganda from the medical community in protecting the status quo of wealth, fixes the "illness condition" as permanent onto our societal psyche fueling appalling levels of stigma, discrimination, and ridicule onto those persons exposed with a substance disability.  Such persons are perpetually considered ill.  As a consequence an overt abuse of a citizens human rights takes place in spite of these rights being purportedly "protected" under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  They are not protected based on the illogical illness model with to date, no ethical rigor or courage from the guardians of justice to cement the true reality.  As opposed to "real diseases illnesses" the only remedy of substance dependence  is a psychological one.  The person  "simply" stops the learned behavior of  ingesting a substance.    The diagnostic statistical manual (DSM) is a psychiatric "governing body" of mental disorders. They categorize substance dependence as a substance use disorder.   A mental disorder.  A psychological disorder/disability. It is correct.  Valid and factual.  Illustrated through neuroscience brain scans on the frontal lobe of human brains lighting up when functional. Dark and unlit when dysfunctional in the presence of a substance of need. Substance addiction is not an illness or disease because it is not first and foremost a medical condition.  As with the unlawful criminalization of substances the politically based illness/disease model of substance disabilities perpetuates unchecked employment discrimination and discrimination in general cultivating an extraordinary amount of unnecessary suffering, enormous economic burden and a complete waste of our rarest commodities: time, energy and financial resources all constantly  funneled down a rabbit hole of perpetually developed hopelessness and doom.  Why such perpetual hopelessness and doom?  In part because in the words of Dr. Gabor Mate, "it lets society off the hook" as those incorrectly labelled with "incurable diseases/illnesses" are isolated, segmented, unemployed,  and ostracized from the rest of society but also because the illness/disease model  does not remove the metaphorical stone from the boot.  The model of understanding invariably does not get to the root cause of a persons psychological need  (to fill a  psychological gap) to use a substance at whatever gradient in the first place.   The illness model and consequential treatment protocols have been set up to fail those in desperate need of ending their suffering.  At a catastrophic level of underachievement and incompetence the illness approach is simply a band-aid of the symptoms of substance dependence.  It does not solve the causal problems because the diagnosis does not permit looking rigorously enough for the route cause  of a persons addiction nor alone fixing it.  And the route cause is always found in a persons social environment and society itself who, rather than assist through unconditioned compassion, kindness and commonsense, instead use stigma as a ferocious whip. The incongruence of the illness-criminal models of understanding of substance disability and what the actual true reality is guarantees perpetual turmoil. The inaccuracy permits/encourages stigma and discrimination of those persons exposed and those hiding behind closed doors who dare not subject themselves to even further pain of unemployment, lost opportunities and lifetime of labeling, ridicule, discrimination and prejudice.  Looking at, codifying and legislating  substance addiction as a mental/substance disability legally and within our lexicon of understanding and language will be the panacea to so much unnecessary human suffering.  A stance against the greatest immortality of our time.  It is so profoundly simple we will, in the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, in the end, "wonder what all the fuss was about".  The number one social determinant of health for any citizen is employment - a persons passion.  Labeling, diagnosing substance dependence as an illness/disease guarantees employment discrimination.  Cementing substance dependence as a mental disability which can be lived with responsibly will improve the lives of millions of people encouraging more to seek help and assistance on how to live with their disabilities without threat of  losing everything.  It will dynamite a hole for the first time into the stigma of drug addiction and the devastating consequences it delivers. 

 

Substance Addiction is not a Crime, Illness, or Disease.  

 

It is a psychological learned behavior/disorder fueled from a psychological need required to fill a psychological gap, influenced most profoundly from ones social environment.

 

Proving the Illness/Disease model to be False.

 

Simplified Illustration 

 

A  Rat in Isolated Cage. Two levers.  Lever one if pressed emits water laced with nutrients.  Lever two if pressed emits water laced with heroin or cocaine.   One week in cage.  Rat dependent on heroin/cocaine .  Two weeks in cage.  Rat dead.     

 

B  Rat in Isolated Cage. Two levers.  Lever one if pressed emits water laced with nutrients.   Lever two if pressed emits water laced with heroin or cocaine.  One week in cage.  Rat dependent on heroin/cocaine .  Then.  Dr. Bruce Alexander takes Rat out of cage.  Places Rat in Rat Park (Paradise) full of other rats.  Unlimited Food.  Play things.  All needs urges taken care of.   Same two levers.  Rat no longer presses lever two - Water laced with heroin/cocaine.  Dependence on cocaine/heroin dissipates and/or disappears all together.

 

The Magnificent Dr Bruce Alexander 

Was Correct Back in 1982

"He has been right all this time" 

 

In spite of the profoundness of "Rack Park Paradise" and its potential implications for ending human suffering, in the early eighties Dr Bruce Alexanders research work and funding was closed down.

 

As quoted to author Johann Harri in his best selling book Chasing the Scream.  Thirty years later in 2015 Bruce Alexander couldn't hide his emotion from the impact the political ignoring of his discovery still has on him.  

 

"It's amazing to discover that something which is so centrally believed (illness/disease model of understanding addiction), is in fact FALSE.  It's just FALSE.   That evidence like this (Rat Park) can be so completely disregarded.  I suppose you could say it's poisoned my whole outlook on life".   

 

Had Canadian Politicians at the time taken Bruce Alexander's discovery seriously.  With inquisitiveness.  With integrity.   The past forty years could have saved much human suffering in Canada alone.

 

Dr Alexander wanted to continue the research to see how it applied to human socialization after clear proof of returning soldiers from Vietnam who became dependent on heroin as a consequence of wartime stress were then able to recover almost immediately  upon their return home proving it is not the substance that causes the dependence but the environment.  After all an illness/disease without a medical cure cannot just re-mediate itself so easily.  

 

While the experiment has transferable limitations when applied to human beings it is still an horrific tragedy and criminal waste of 40 years of  life saving information missed had Dr Alexander been permitted to continue.   

 

It is clear from my own personal experience and again commonsense Rats are not subjected to Stigma, Prejudice, Discrimination.  Nor do they have to apply for employment opportunities or worry about being fired. 

 

What Dr Alexander did provide as it related to human social isolation was the understanding of the innate human need for Social Bonding and Social Integration the dysfunction of which makes one more susceptible to substance dependence.  It is the Paul J James to a tee.

  

The environmental aspect of understanding substance dependence, substance disability has never been taken seriously and at an appalling cost in terms of unnecessary human loss and suffering.  The Paul J James story replicates that reality. 

 

Apology to Dr Bruce Alexander Simon Fraser University 

Future Order of Canada.....

Rat Park Paradise and its significance....lost 38 years of further research....   

 

Dear Dr. Bruce Alexander,

 

On behalf of ALL Canadian citizens, posthumously, Pierre Elliot Trudeau,  the Canadian Parliament today and back in 1982,  I forward you this deepest, heartfelt and sincerest of apologies for the lack of research support and recognition which has never been afforded at the level you were warranted and deserved.  Once you discovered the profound implications of our social environment on those susceptible and afflicted with substance disabilities your work and discovery was tragically scuppered from further investigation because of willful ignorance, power, greed and cowardice.  

 

Your insight, foresight, nous, and observational skill as a social science researcher, combined with your innate humanity and drive to making the world a better place, led you to  inquire, question, problem solve and then build a Rat Park Paradise.   Even to a lay person on the subject matter of substance addiction once in receipt of the information they can grasp the profoundness of what you discovered and know to be true.

 

As to how social isolation relates to human beings and substance dependence, history will prove you had the single biggest impact on changing how the world approach the man made social health phenomena of substance dependence.  The calibrating of preventable damage in terms of human suffering, lives lost, economic waste and human rights abuses as a consequence of ignoring your discoveries 40 years ago, does not bear thinking about.  It is staggering.  Not quantifiable.  

 

Willful ignorance of others, prejudice and international bad politics thwarted your observations.  Had political persons at the time taken your discovery seriously.  With inquisitiveness.  With integrity.  Then the past forty years could have saved much human suffering.  For that mistake, I again apologize to you, on behalf of so many others and the millions of lives it ended and ruined.   

 

Yours sincerely,   Paul J James

 

 

The public interest in this matter cannot be underestimated as ALL Canadians, at a minimum, expect a judicial system which is transparent, impartial, honest, ethical, fair, responsible, accessible and above all JUST in order that, at the very least, future Applications to Human Rights Tribunals, the lower courts, and the SCC are adjudicated and judged on truth and integrity not untruths and improprieties. It is Applicants position that when the Canadian public including the Canadian government and Canadian sporting governing bodies become privy to the full set of circumstances and evidence which the Applicant has endured and provided to the Tribunal and lower courts respectively, they will be as appalled and disgusted as Applicant and those closet to Applicant who are aware of such circumstances. If Applicant's circumstances which includes a significant soccer background and education can be treated in such a repulsive way what does it say for other Applicants chances of seeking fair access to justice from lower disadvantaged circumstances? Established case law should be based on integrity and justice not deceit and injustice which in the latter instance harms the future of all Canadians. As it stands now Applicants' claim at the lower courts has already been used to recreate injustice through the ongoing use of tainted rationale. I do not and will not accept this nor should any other Canadian citizen".  (Paul J James submitted Supreme Court of Canada Affidavit Summer 2016)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

FOLLOW US