MAG's Connie Vernon's False Affidavit

Background History:

Connie Vernon is a lawyer who currently works as Counsel for the
Crown Law Office – Civil of the Ministry of the Attorney General at:

720 Bay Street, 8th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2S9.

She was the person who had carriage of my Civil Matter against the Crown from March 2014. My lawsuit was was filed on April 7, 2014 at the Sudbury Courthouse located at 155 Elm Street in the District of Sudbury, Ontario.

As a result of systemic delays in the Crown defending themselves. I noted the Crown in default on April 1, 2014. The Crown was actually noted in default almost a full year after I filed my lawsuit of April 7, 2014 due to their own negligences and planning.

Connie Vernon then lied in an affidavit on April 2, 2014 about why the
Crown was noted in default. The full affidavit of Connie Vernon plainly lies under oath is below. This affidavit was placed in my motion record and as you can all imagine Sudbury Judges don't care about lawyers who lie.

I want to call you attention to pages of her affidavit circled in red in #1 and #4 that she, Connie Vernon had carriage of the matter.

Then on item #8 also circled in red where Connie Vernon lies while stating that the only reason the Crown was noted in default is because of other pressing matters and oversight.

I claim this was all planned delay tactics and not because of oversights like Connie Vernon stated.

On item # 11 you can read for yourself that the Michael Birnie the lawyer for the GSPS police defendants did attempted to set dates for examination for discovery on December 4, 2014 with the Crown. But Mr. Birnie was told that the Crown had no intention on being examined and actually planned on delaying my matter till the end of the following year in late winter 2015.

Which is why the real crown was noted in default. Due to their own negligence and not what Courts were lied about.

On item # 14, Connie Vernon indicates that I never requested a defence for her assistant Crown Asad Moten.

The facts are that:

1. Asad Moten sent me a notice of intent to defend on April 22 and the Crown didn't do anything else until the following year when they were noted in default.

2. Rule 18.01 of Civil Law Procedure RULE 18 TIME FOR DELIVERY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE TIME FOR DELIVERY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE 18.01 Except as provided in rule 18.02 or subrule 19.01 (5) (late delivery of defence) or 27.04 (2) (counterclaim against plaintiff and non-party), a statement of defence (Form 18A) shall be delivered, (a) within twenty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served in Ontario; (b) within forty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served elsewhere in Canada or in the United States of America; or (c) within sixty days after service of the statement of claim, where the defendant is served anywhere else. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.01. NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEFEND 18.02 (1) A defendant who is served with a statement of claim and intends to defend the action may deliver a notice of intent to defend (Form 18B) within the time prescribed for delivery of a statement of defence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (1). (2) A defendant who delivers a notice of intent to defend within the prescribed time is entitled to ten days, in addition to the time prescribed by rule 18.01, within which to deliver a statement of defence. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 18.02 (2). Rule 18.02 of Civil Law Procedure 2. It is the duty of the defendant to provide the Statement of Defence within 30 days or risk being noted in default. Pursuant to Rule 19.01 of Civil Law Procedure. It is not up to the plaintiff to run after a defence. NOTING DEFAULT Where no Defence Delivered 19.01 (1) Where a defendant fails to deliver a statement of defence within the prescribed time, the plaintiff may, on filing proof of service of the statement of claim, or of deemed service under subrule 16.01 (2), require the registrar to note the defendant in default. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 19.01 (1); O. Reg. 113/01, s. 3. I could submit this information to the Law Society of Upper Canada. But I can almost guaranteee without fail to you that the Law Society of Upper Canada wouldn't do anything about it. Even with proof that a Crown attorney lied under oath like of you now read with your own eyes.

Then on item # 20 also circled in red Connie Vernon states that the Crown was noted in default because of an oversight. This is a blatant lie. It was already mentioned that the Crown intended to delay the matter till the end of Winter 2014 as mentioned in item #14. Thus the Crown was noted in default by the admissions in the affidavit by Connie Verson because of preplanned delay tactics and not because of oversights like she claims. This is a serious breach of ethics for a lawyer to lie under oath in an affidavit.

Perjury It's not provincial it's Federal because it's under the Criminal Code. Perjury is ann intentional lie given while under oath or in a sworn affidavit. Here's the relevant section of the Criminal Code: Criminal Code PART IV: OFFENCES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW AND JUSTICE Misleading Justice Perjury 131. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false. Video links, etc. (1.1) Subject to subsection (3), every person who gives evidence under subsection 46(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, or gives evidence or a statement pursuant to an order made under section 22.2 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes a false statement knowing that it is false, whether or not the false statement was made under oath or solemn affirmation in accordance with subsection (1), so long as the false statement was made in accordance with any formalities required by the law of the place outside Canada in which the person is virtually present or heard. Idem (2) Subsection (1) applies, whether or not a statement referred to in that subsection is made in a judicial proceeding. Application (3) Subsections (1) and (1.1) do not apply to a statement referred to in either of those subsections that is made by a person who is not specially permitted, authorized or required by law to make that statement. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 131; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17; 1999, c. 18, s. 92. False Affidavit

If I though for one second that the Law Society of Upper Canada would do anything about a lawyer lying on an affidavit. I would complain to them.
But we all kow how complaints are normally handled in these days. They
get tossed and the people you complained about and the agencies who
oversees them hope you go away.

Complaint processes to most Government type places is a joke.

Hence, why going Public is the best remedy when anyone has been wronged.

Don't you agree?

If anyone of you have any concerns to what is written on this Web page.

Contact me as I have nothing to hide.