Open letter to Justice M. G. Ellies
of the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario
To prevent freedom from dying in the dark, I am making this letter an open letter for all the public to see so the court of public opinion may judge for him or herself.
The false Endorsement this letter is in response to may be found here.
January 24, 2025
Superior Court of Ontario
Northern City, ON
RE: CITATION: Ridding v. School, 2025 ONSC XX6
COURT FILE NO.: None
DATE: 2025/01/21
Good Afternoon Justice Ellies,
In jurisprudence, I am responding, by open letter, to the irregular endorsement issued by you on 2025/01/21 under Citation Ridding v. School, 2025 ONSC 446, Court File No: NONE.
In jurisprudence, under the principles of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness and the principles of Fundamental Justice when one is causing unwarranted harm to another, the other should, wherever possible, make the harm known to the one causing the harm, in order to provide the opportunity for the one causing harm to correct his or her course of action.
Upon being provided fair notice of the harm being caused, the one causing harm is supposed to either refute, rebut and or provide an acceptable resolution, presumably founded in the recourse and or remedy being sought by the one being harmed.
Jurisprudence
Looking not at the dictionary definitions of jurisprudence, but at its Etymology, jurisprudence stems from the Latin juris and prudens the Latin words for Justice and Prudence.
Prudent Justice is not even remotely similar to what dictionaries currently define this word to mean, even though this meaning should be self-evident in the revelation of its Etymology. It rather makes those dictionary definitions the beginning of syllogism, which may mislead the public into misunderstanding the true meaning of jurisprudence and further lead towards injustice and or judicial activism.
Juris should not be confused with the Latin jus. Juris, being “possessive” should be viewed as “of right” whereas jus being the root of juris should be viewed as “right”.
Nor should Jus be necessarily seen to mean “law” for reason that in Latin lex is the proper word for “law”.
Breach of Procedural Rules
As illustrated on the Ontario Courts website, if not actually in the Rules of Civil Procedure itself, a person may commence a proceeding in one of three ways, 1. in person, 2. Online, 3. or by mail.
While the Ontario courts do encourage the use of “Online Portals”, because I have issue(s) working with “Online Portals” I have repeatedly been able commence proceedings online, in other jurisdictions, by emailing the commencing instruments to the correct trial coordinator and or court to have the commencing instrument registered, stamped, filed and issued back to me.
Typically, these clerks will let me know if I need to redirect my commencing instrument to a different clerk and or other court, or let me know if something is missing or incomplete.
Simply put, it is the job of the clerks to receive, register and file, and if something is incomplete or misdirected, to make these deficiencies known to the one commencing the proceeding, without discrimination.
While I do, in jurisprudence, tend to do my best to work openly and in full transparency, to be certain all have fair notice of what I am doing, for a judge of the Superior Court to intercept the registration and filing process in order to issue an endorsement is most irregular and appears to be without rule of law to support.
More to the point, not only do I believe there to be no rule of law which gives any judge any legal or lawful authority to review an unregistered and unfiled Notice of Application of Judicial Review in order to issue a one-sided endorsement, doing so appears to violate Due Process in violation of a judges ethical Fiduciary Duties established by and with Rule 2.D.1 of the Ethical Rules for Judges.
Against jurisprudence, your alleged Endorsement prevents at least 6 things from following. In no particular order, your alleged Endorsement prevents pro se litigants’ access to justice by,
1. preventing his or her legal instrument to be duly registered in order to commence a proceeding;
2. preventing his or her legal instrument filed onto the official record after being duly registered;
3. failing to allow the opportunity for any one of these pro se applicants the opportunity to serve the registered instruments in accordance to the Rules of Civil Procedure;
4. denying these pro se applicants the right to receive a response from the Respondents in regard to his or her legal commencing instrument;
5. preventing the applicants’ from their right to redress the Respondents answer to the commencing instrument;
6. preventing the applicants’ from their right to pursue discoveries in accordance to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
With the commencement of the proceeding interrupted and or disrupted and prevented by your apparently false Endorsement establishes the denial of access to justice for these pro se litigants in contravention to Rule 2.D.1 of the Ethical Rules for Judges.
Furthermore, and against jurisprudence, your alleged Endorsement not only prevented me from any opportunity to properly serve the Respondents, in accordance to the Rules for Civil Procedure it establishes the majority of your reasoning to deny the commencement of the proceeding from being duly established on false pretences.
Did I try to file a Notice of Application for Judicial Review?
Yes.
Did I try to file the Notice of Application for Judicial Review online?
Yes.
Was my application received by the clerk?
Yes.
Did the clerk bring any issue or issues of my online filing to my attention?
No.
Did the clerk in receipt of my application register and file it and send it back to me so I might effect service in accordance to the Rules of Civil Procedure?
No.
Will my application be registered and filed so I may effect service?
Apparently not.
Why?
Because you, Justice M.G. Ellies, have apparently used your judicial powers unconstitutionally.
When I looked you up, it appears your judicial powers were bestowed on you, pursuant to Section 96 of Canada’s British North America Act, 1867 – Enactment no. 1, by then Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, David Lemetti, a known member of the private political party known as the Liberal Party of Canada.
For any judge of the Superior court to overstep Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure to apparently stop me from commencing any proceeding in Northern City does cause the appearance of a blatant attempt to deny pro se applicants from access to justice, in contravention to Rule 2.D.1 of the Ethical Rules for Judges.
This not only demonstrates contempt against me for being a pro se litigant it may even be construed as utter disdain towards my pro se litigant status.
Furthermore, did I file a motion?
No.
Did I seek direction from the clerk about seeking leave in my email?
Yes.
My point?
My email seeking direction on how to pursue leave, by motion, or not, after the Application had been registered and filed, should never have been construed as a motion in hand, in and of itself.
For any judge of the Superior Court to act without authority or warrant and prevent the 1. registration, 2. filing, 3. service, 4. response, 5. redress, and 6. discoveries (if necessary) of this matter in hand, is not only a gross injustice, it brings the administration of justice into gross and undue disrepute and further erodes and extends the lack of confidence the public currently has in the courts of Canada, or any part thereof, contrary to Rule 2.A.1 of the Ethical Rules for Judges.
Canada’s First Enactment
While Canada’s First enactment may provide you power under Section 96 of Canada’s British North America Act, 1867 over those who give you jurisdiction to adjudicate issues, this power bestowed upon you by the BNA is not absolute pursuant to the principles of the supremacy of God and the rule of law upon which Canada is founded.
A judge of the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario is established in law as a statutory person. As a statutory person causes a judge’s power to be limited to, among other things, to these principles of the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
Judges should not use their status or authority, or the status of their office, to seek, for themselves or others, an advantage or benefit to which they would not otherwise be entitled, pursuant to Rule 2. F. 1 of the Ethical Rules for Judges.
While you appear to be quick to falsely apply several Rules of Civil Procedure against me in order to prevent the 1. registration, 2. filing, 3. service, 4. response, 5. redress, and 6. discoveries (if necessary) of this matter in hand, your quick one-sided ruling made against me which prevented me from properly serving any Respondent does subsequently establish both prejudice and a denied access to justice within Ontario, Canada, in contravention of your Fiduciary Duty established by and with section 96 of Canada’s British North America Act., 1867 and Rule 2. F. 1 of the Ethical Rules for Judges.
Acting on evidence not in hand
Not only do you appear to demonstrate contempt, if not utter disdain, towards my status as a pro se litigant, you also appeared to take the time to research me while overlooking the arguments in hand specific to the misconstrued application of Section 6 of the ISPA, by a principal and vice principal under his or her limited authority established by Section 306 of the Education Act against the pupil which I brought forward without tying any of it to any “campaign”.
At this point, I bring forward your comments made by you in regards to your decision being tied to another matter, namely, “my campaign”.
While I admit I shared both my Demand Letter served to both my MPP and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as well as my Cease and Desist Letter served to the principal and vice principal, I don’t recall in any of this evidence I submitted making any admission about leading a campaign.
Nor do I, to the best of my knowledge, have any recollection of tying this Notice of Application for Judicial Review to any campaign I may be concurrently pursuing.
Furthermore, because this proceeding was interrupted, before any Respondent could be duly served, in accordance to the Rules of Civil Procedure, means that no response by any named Respondent is on record which further means that no evidence exists which would otherwise “tie” any campaign I may be pursuing concurrently to this Application.
With all these things in mind should cause the tying of any “campaign” by you to this Application to be prejudicial., especially in consideration that any “campaign” was only 6 days old at the time of your issuance of your apparently false Endorsement, meaning you must have taken it upon yourself to look me up in order to inject your “own evidence” in contravention of Rule 2.D.2 of the Ethical Rules of Judges.
Furthermore, because I was in process of commencing a proceeding, and that no evidence had been submitted by any Respondent, means there appears to be no good reason for you to be aware of any “campaign” I may have commenced against the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on January 15th, 2025 meaning either someone called you to stop me from commencing this proceeding, you did a Google-type search on me, or something similar to learn of my managing concurrent matters that are similar in nature, but not in direction.
Regardless of how you came to this knowledge, by tying my Application to any “campaign” I may be pursuing concurrently causes you, as the judge, to be acting partially against me with your admission of this knowledge in order to tie this knowledge to your apparently false Endorsement in order to prejudice me and help justify your apparently false Endorsement, in contravention to Rule 2.D.2 of the Ethical Rules for Judges.
Supremacy of God and the rule of law
God gave each of us free will along with 10 Commandments.
Does God’s 10 Commandments tell individuals what to do?
No.
Does God’s 10 Commandments tell individuals what not to do?
Yes.
The reason why God’s 10 Commandments may only tell us what not to do is because God gave each of us free will, or the right to make our own decisions / choices.
While God may encourage each of us to live our lives in honour, and without trespassing on another causing harm to another, He can not stop any one of us from causing harm. If God could do that, then a drunk driver would never have needed to be punished after crossing the center line and nearly killing my own child in a head-on collision.
At best, on Judgement Day, God may punish each of us when our Day of Judgement comes upon each of us. But that is between each of us and God.
Likewise, in Canada Lex, the laws of men, should reflect these same principles. In particular, that no government of Canada, or any part thereof, may tell any member of the public what he or she shall do. At best, in Canada Lex, and in jurisprudence, legislative governments should only be able to tell any member of the public what not to do, and nothing more.
With this in mind, only if a member of the public offends a law and causes harm, damages, or imminent risk thereof, would “reasonable and probable grounds” be duly established in law, and in jurisprudence, subsequently establishing “merit” which may then allow any one to pursue recourse and remedy in accordance to the rules of law of Canada, private law, and or tort law, as the case may be.
My point?
Inferior administrative law, having largely been established with inferior statutory powers are largely constitutionally repugnant, in part because they presume to control public behaviour without merit first being duly established in jurisprudence.
Because these administrative laws, like the Immunization School Pupils Act are established with inferior statutory powers causes these inferior administrative laws to be without either constitutional powers and or Subject Matter jurisdiction causing them to be in part, or in whole, constitutionally repugnant and without jurisdiction over the unlimited capacity of the individual, pursuant to Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney General of Canada, [1951] SCR 31
Furthermore, the recourse and remedy being offered through a highly unconstitutional “Board”, established by the Immunization School Pupils Act, like the Act itself, is constitutionally repugnant for reason the Board contravenes Section 96 of Canada’s British North America Act, 1867 – Enactment no. 1.
So highly suspect and constitutionally repugnant is most administrative law in Canada, that Canadians have a lawful right to challenge it, in all duly established constitutional judicial proceedings, including the House of Commons as well as the Provincial Legislatures and not just the inherent court of jurisdiction, which is the point of the campaign, which you seemed inclined to tie to this Notice of Application for Judicial Review.
At present, my “campaign” is tied to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and not the Superior court of Justice for Ontario.
My Notice of Application for Judicial Proceeding, along with this apparent false Endorsement, is tied to 3 pro se Applicants pursuing justice before the Superior Court of Justice and not the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
The judge, without reason, tied these two separate actions together, and not the Applicants nor the Respondents, to my knowledge.
False Endorsement
I know not what would motivate you to create and establish this false Endorsement which would deny me and my co-Applicants from access to justice. However, circumstantial evidence would indicate that your motive may be, in part, political, as you seem to have been appointed by then Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, David Lemetti, who was also a known member of a private political party known as the Liberal Party of Canada.
Regardless of your motive, because you have issued an apparently false Endorsement on an unregistered Notice of Application for Judicial Review apparently for the purpose of preventing this Application from commencing a proceeding, including, but not limited to, the ability to complete the 6 steps of Due Process illustrated above, gives me a bonafide reason to cry foul and not recognize this alleged Endorsement of yours as being genuine, in contravention of s. 366 (1) of Canada’s Criminal Code.
To be clear, by addressing this alleged Endorsement as COURT FILE NO.: NONE, along with your comments duly establishes this Endorsement to be made on a non-existent claim causing it to be a false Endorsement, contrary to s. 366 (1)(a) of Canada’s Criminal Code.
I bring all this information to your attention in this letter, in order to provide you with an opportunity to withdraw your false document and recuse yourself no later than end of business on Monday, January 27th, 2025.
My reason for bringing these things forward is, in part, in order to provide you with the opportunity to refute, rebut and or work towards a genuine resolution.
However, I also bring all these things to yours, and every one else’s attention, to be certain you have full knowledge of the issues in hand, which I have identified herein, with your apparently false Endorsement made on a non-existent court file against me, so should you fail to refute, rebut, and or cure these jurisdictional defects at law, I can, and may, hold them against you in Canadian jurisprudence
TAKE NOTICE – by being made aware should duly establish you to be knowingly and wilfully with intent to commit forgery, should you fail to refute, rebut or resolve, for the purpose of ensuring, from my perspective, the forgery to be complete, contrary to s. 366 (1)(3) of Canada’s Criminal Code, Rule(s) 2.A.1, 2.D.1, 2.D.2, and 2.F.1 of the Ethical Rules for Judge
Pursuant to Rule 2.A.1, Ethical Rules for Judges
Public confidence in the judiciary is essential to an effective judicial system and, ultimately, the rule of law. Within that system, judges hold positions of significant trust, confidence and responsibility. Conduct, in and out of court, that exhibits integrity ensures public respect for and confidence in the individual judge and, more significantly, contributes to public confidence in the judiciary and the judicial system as a whole. Judges should therefore act with a high degree of decorum, propriety and humanity.
My point?
While judges are typically seen to be free from being prosecuted in the course of his or her duties, that state of absolution only should extend insofar as he or she is acting, or seen to be acting, “in good faith”.
At present, you are far from being seen by the public as acting ‘in good faith” when your actions appear to be criminal in nature, pursuant to the provisions of Forgery set out by and with subsections 366 (1)(a)(b)(3) of Canada’s Criminal Code.
Moreover, because your actions do appear to be criminal in nature, as expressly prescribed by Section 366 of Canada’s Criminal Code, and are suspect of being made in process of judicial activism against me and my co-applicant’s, should, upon having them brought forward to your attention, and made known to the public, make you culpable should you fail to rescind your apparently false Endorsement and recuse yourself.
Count #1: On January 21st, 2025, at the Superior Court of Justice (Northern City), by signing and issuing Endorsement Citation Ridding v. School, 2025 ONSC 446, on none existent Court File No: NONE, Justice M.G. Ellies did commit the offence of forgery by making a false document and using or acting on it as genuine, to the prejudice of Amanda Ridding et al, contrary to s. 366 (1)(a), of Canada’s Criminal Code.
Count #2 & Count #3: On January 21st, 2025, at the Superior Court of Justice (Northern City), by
sending a copy of this Forgery, this apparent false Endorsement issued on a non-existent court file to the both the principal and the vice principal does cause the appearance that neither the principal nor vice principal are required to comply to the provisions expressly prescribed by the Education Act by providing the pupil with either a suspension and reason for suspension pursuant to Section 306 of the Education Act, or withdraw his or her stand in regards to their unlawful enforcement of s. 6 (1) of the Immunization School Pupils Act which may only be applied to the principal and or vice principal and not a pupil, causing those two person, the principal and vice principal to be induced, by the false belief, that Justice Ellies’s forgery is genuine which further causes each of these two persons to refrain from following Ontario’s expressly prescribed laws with respect to suspension, pursuant to Section 306 of Ontario’s Education Act or allow the pupil to lawfully return to class without further ado, contrary to s. 366 (1)(b) of Canada’s Criminal Code.
Nor has it escaped my notice that Allison Webster of Harrison Pensa, LLP admitted and acknowledged in p. 2 that Section 6 of Ontario’s ISPA does limit a medical officer of health’s jurisdiction to “a person who operates a school” and does not actually apply to a pupil.
As an officer of the court, educated in law, presumably with knowledge and practice at law, establishes that there to be no good reason for this judicial system participant to ignore and or overlook the genuine jurisdictional challenges of defect, which have been brought forward, in order to pursue a stand which is neither being made and or presented before a Board which violates an individual’s right to be heard before a Section 96 judge, duly established by Canada’s British North America Act, 1867.
Pursuit of Count #4: By bringing forward and making publicly known these issues with respect to Justice M. G. Ellies’s forgery, in particular, his Endorsement made on a non-existent Court File No,: NONE should establish the forgery as being complete, as it will have been made with the knowledge and intent referred to in subsection (1), in contravention to s. 366 (3) of Canada’s Criminal Code.
Should you fail to re-establish “good-faith” by withdrawing your forgery and recusing yourself, I can and may pursue you legally and lawfully, in accordance to jurisprudence along with Canada’s constitutional rules of law, common law, and or equity.
Finally, please address me according to how I have presented myself. I am a pro se Applicant, or litigant, who presents myself “in person”. I am not a self-represented Applicant, as I am not re-presenting myself.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Amanda Ridding
Barrie-Innisfil
Additional Authorities:
[32] The historic task of the superior courts is to resolve disputes between individuals and decide questions of private and public law. Measures that prevent people from coming to the courts to have those issues resolved are at odds with this basic judicial function. The resolution of these disputes and resulting determination of issues of private and public law, viewed in the institutional context of the Canadian justice system, are central to what the superior courts do. Indeed, it is their very book of business. To prevent this business being done strikes at the core of the jurisdiction of the superior courts protected by s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. As a result, hearing fees that deny people access to the courts infringe the core jurisdiction of the superior courts.
[38] While this suffices to resolve the fundamental issue of principle in this appeal, the connection between s. 96 and access to justice is further supported by considerations relating to the rule of law. This Court affirmed that access to the courts is essential to the rule of law in B.C.G.E.U. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214. As Dickson C.J. put it, “[t]here cannot be a rule of law without access, otherwise the rule of law is replaced by a rule of men and women who decide who shall and who shall not have access to justice” (p. 230). The Court adopted, at p. 230, the B.C. Court of Appeal’s statement of the law ((1985), 20 D.L.R. (4th) 399, at p. 406):
. . . access to the courts is under the rule of law one of the foundational pillars protecting the rights and freedoms of our citizens. . . . Any action that interferes with such access by any person or groups of persons will rally the court’s powers to ensure the citizen of his or her day in court. Here, the action causing interference happens to be picketing. As we have already indicated, interference from whatever source falls into the same category. [Emphasis added.]
As stated more recently in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, per Karakatsanis J., “without an accessible public forum for the adjudication of disputes, the rule of law is threatened and the development of the common law undermined” (para. 26).
c. c. Mom
Principal
Vice Principal
Jill Dunlop - minister.edu@ontario.ca
Andrea Khanjin - andrea.khanjin@pc.ola.org
Katherine Chabot - andrea.khanjin@pc.ola.org
Ted Arnott - speakerarnott@ola.org
Trevor Day - tday@ola.orgsylvia.jones@ontario.ca
Sylvia Jones - Sylvia.Jones@ontario.ca
Attorney General of Ontario - CLBSUPPORT@ontario.ca
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Ontario NCQ- AQC.Toronto@justice.gc.ca
Northern City SCJ TC
JUS-G-MAG-CSD – Northern City Courthouse
Gay Smylie – NNDSB – Gay.Smylie@nearnorthschools.ca
Allison Webster - awebster@harrisonpensa.com
Megan Eighteen - meighteen@harrisonpensa.com
Tbh, I anticipate being ignored. But I have a plan.
Why do they call Justices Honorable? This one is most definitely anything but Honorable.
“But the wicked are doomed, for they will get exactly what they deserve.”