Please reload



In February 2012 Cracked Open was released for public consumption via a Canadian Press article written by Neil Davidson.

While the article was high...

Cracked Open - Supreme Court of Canada; Non-Redactions; Documents

May 13, 2020

Please reload


Dear Supreme Court of Canada : James vs York University Docket Number (#36795).

December 12, 2019

Dear Supreme Court of Canada,


For transparency to the Canadian public.  


The Canadian establishment have treated the masses as dumb for far too long.   


Firstly.  Please absorb an observation based on personal experience.  


At Canada's most esteemed institution you are not doing your jobs as privileged and honored Supreme Court Justices.  You are not the guardians of Justice in Canada you are enablers of Injustice. The cause of much suffering delivered to Canadian citizens.  You have and continue to let ALL Canadian citizens down.


Intelligence is not your impediment.  Nor is intelligence the impediment of the Canadian Judicial system.  


Character is the problem.  Cowardice.  Greed.  Ethics. Immorality.   Cheating.  Bad Faith.  Immature ideology.  


On the latter point.   


Canada has established its legal approach as the complete opposite of the litigious United States.    And you  have done so at the expense of a citizens liberty.  Their purity.  A nations purity.  It has escalated to the point no one gets justice and organizations abuse their positions of power willfully.  And it has reached epidemic levels.  It has cultivated irresponsible behavior.  Incompetence.  Cheats.  Bad (evil) Politics.  Inequality. Crime.  Arrogance.  Willful Ignorance.  Hierarchies of Incompetence.   A wild, wild west.  Cowboys/Girls with no scruples. 


The James vs York University claim is a horror story.   


I do not accept this and I hold the Supreme Court of Canada accountable for such poverty of behavior and thought.   


Please consider the following questions.


1.  As Supreme Court of Canada Justices who are you accountable to?  


I take the liberty of answering the question for you.  The Canadian public.  Whether one citizen or a million citizens.  You are accountable for the Paul J James mess.  The appalling behavior of York University, the Canadian media, Bob Rae, Mary Ormsby, the Toronto Star....Canadian Politicians.  A nation will reflect the behavior of their Judicial system and you are top of the hierarchy.  


2.  Was the James vs York University human rights discrimination claim submitted to your court of January 5, 2016 administered and adjudicated based on:


a.   Incompetence 




b.   Corruption (bad faith)



In the human rights discrimination claim James vs York University docket number (#36795).  Points taken from Supreme Court of Canada Affidavit Submitted by Paul J James to the Honorable Court in the summer of 2016 


  Incompetence or Corruption (Bad Faith) ?  


Certifying The Leave to Appeal 


20. 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.


21. 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 of Appeal 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 concluded this was merely an innocent error by the administration of the SCC.   


Submitted Information as highlighted in point 21 of  Supreme Court of Canada Affidavit 


 Front Cover                    Divisional Court of Ontario 

 Page One                        Divisional Court of Ontario

 Page Three                     Divisional Court of Ontario 

 Page Seven                    Divisional Court of Ontario

 Page Nine                       Divisional Court of Ontario 



Corrected  Information as highlighted in point 21 of  Supreme Court of Canada Affidavit  which was "MISSED"  by the Honorable court in the administration process


Front Cover                    Ontario Court of Appeal 

Page One                        Ontario Court of Appeal 

Page Three                     Ontario Court of Appeal

Page Seven                    Ontario Court of Appeal 

Page Nine                       Ontario Court of Appeal



As stated in the conclusion of point 21.  


"It is patently unreasonable for any Canadian citizen to conclude this was merely an innocent error by the administration of the SCC".   





Incompetence or Corruption (Bad Faith) ?    


Ruling on the Merits of the Case 


22. On May 9, 2016, the law branch of the Supreme Court of Canada in their dissemination of their Case Summary on my file (#36795) via their website, inappropriately used the following sentence, 


“Depression and other physical and medical consequences of such an addiction resulted in Mr. James resigning from his position at York in December 2009.” 


This patently unreasonable statement severely prejudiced my claim to the Canadian public and to the Honorable judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. It was a statement I contested in my submissions to the Ontario Court of Appeal; to the Supreme Court of Canada and directly to the chief editor of the National Post newspaper Ms. Anne Marie Owens. The law branch of the SCC should have known that the statement was inappropriate. Based on reasonableness the law branch would have been able to ascertain that it was an inappropriate ruling on the merits of the case which required debate and correction by the SCC judges not the law branch or administration arm of the institution to willfully ignore its inappropriateness and significance in prejudicing the matter before the court and in the public eye. 


23. As a consequence of this inappropriate decision to include and forward the false statement, and upon careful review of my claim throughout the Canadian judicial process from 2013 on- wards the appearance of impropriety and collusion in order to dismiss my legitimate discrimination claim against the Respondent, York University, to any reasonably minded person is beyond significant. To conclude otherwise is patently unreasonable. 


24. As a former Canadian international soccer player and coach who on the international stage represented Canada with dignity, integrity, courage, relentless effort, great pride and total belief in the values Canada “holds dear,” I have never been so discouraged and shamed than at this moment when recognition that what we communicate to the world on who we are as Canadians, represented by our “justice, equality, and fairness”, is an illusion.  




31.  On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Registry-Greffe wrote: 

"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".


Supreme Court Justices the Registrar took the sentence down because it was wrong.  Not just because Paul James objected to it.  It was removed May 17, 2016 four days after the court had dismissed the file.  The sentence communicated to the Global public that, 


“Depression and other physical and medical consequences of such an addiction resulted in Mr. James resigning from his position at York in December 2009.”  

  1. It was a closed statement with no other plausible interpretation from what it stated.  

  2. It was an inappropriate ruling on the merits of the case from Justice Edwards at the Divisional Court of Ontario which was not before the court.  

  3. It was unscrupulously and unlawfully colluded and used by the National Post newspaper and outlet to defame the human rights discrimination claim before the court and to harm Paul James reputation even further in 2015.  

  4. The issue before the lower courts was the One Year Limitation Period - not the Merits of the Case.  Period.

With unfettered licence you as Supreme Court Justices do no have to  explain why a Leave to Appeal is granted or dismissed.   This is unequivocal.  Everyone should be treated equally and fairly. 


However in the James vs York University claim the Honorable court you gave the explanation to the public.   You stated to them that Paul J James was not discriminated against at York University and he resigned of his own accord because of  "depression and other physical and medical consequences of such an addiction".   It was/is a false statement.  The issue was not before the court.  I never had my chance to defend myself.  The evidence before the court could never be distilled to establish the statements validity but rather the opposite.  I was one hundred per cent discriminated against.  And the evidence proved it.   The evidence York University submitted was overt, egregious, plain and obvious Lies and Deceit.  In the case of Bree Carr-Harris she did not even speak to York University representatives.  Had she have done so she would have been truthful.  


The use of the sentence,  "Depression and other physical and medical consequences of such an addiction resulted in Mr. James resigning from his position at York in December 2009,"  was preposterously  inappropriate for the Honorable court to have disseminated.  RidiculousIncompetence or Corruption (Bad Faith) ?      


The sentence savagely  infringed on the Human right of Paul J James to be treated equally and fairly.  


If the following sentence was disseminated on a different case.  A murder for example or a case of extortion/fraud would the Case Summary read in the same inappropriate way as the James vs York University summary?


  “Depression resulted in Joe Bloggs  murdering Jane Doe on December 1st,  2009.”    


Would it be permitted?  Would such an error be made? 


Would it be considered to be used as a Case Summary Description when the Merits of the Case were not before the court?  


It is plain and obvious that it would not be.  


Then why in the James vs York University human rights discrimination claim was such a sentence used?  


Incompetence or corruption (bad faith)?


More importantly as your Supreme Court registrar communicated on May 17, 2016 at 2:57 PM, 


"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".  


What the Registrar could not inform Paul J James or the Canadian public on, is whether the sentence, 


“Depression and other physical and medical consequences of such an addiction resulted in Mr. James resigning from his position at York in December 2009.”   


was communicated to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court  of Canada Ms Beverly McLachlin who was selected to adjudicate the James vs York University claim. 


If it was. 


Then it unfairly and unequally prejudiced the file which is an egregious infringement of Paul James' Human Right to be treated equally and fairly under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  


If it was not communicated.  Then why would the administration branch communicate to the general public the false sentence  informing them of "why the file was corruptly" dismissed.


Incompetence or Corruption (Bad Faith) ?      


As a consequence of the courts own rules you cannot inform/communicate to the Canadian public what was sent on to Chief Justice in charge of the claim through the Law Branch's report. Nor can the court communicate to the public the Law branch recommendation to the Chief Justice on whether to dismiss or grant Leave to Appeal. 


On the basis of the aforementioned the Canadian public has excruciating painful reasons to believe the James vs York University claim was not adjudicated equally and fairly once in the presence of Chief Justice Ms Beverley McLachlin.  The evidence as illuminated here and in the attached Affidavit  to the Supreme Court of Canada is that the James vs York University file was not adjudicated equally and fairly.  It is patently unreasonable to formulate any other conclusion. 


The only way therefore, the Canadian public can be one hundred per cent assured Paul J James as a person was treated equally and fairly will be for the claim to be returned and reviewed by one individual Supreme Court of Canada justice expeditiously. 



Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Please reload