Canadian government has been complained to the UN human rights council for violations of UN human rights laws

img_1105

Pimg_1106img_1107United nation 1
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Sahinbay v. Da Silva, 2016 ONCA 333
DATE: 20160503
DOCKET: C59748
Laskin, Pepall and Brown JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Arif Sahinbay and Dilek Sahinbay
Plaintiffs/Appellants
and
Ricardo Da Silva and Isilda Da Silva
Defendants/Respondents
James Cooper, for the appellant, Arif Sahinbay
Joanne Blacklock and Nicholas Ajram, for the respondents
Heard and released orally: April 29, 2016
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Thomas R. Lederer of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 19, 2014, sitting with a jury.
ENDORSEMENT
[1]            The appellant is represented by counsel today.  Counsel argues that at the trial of the action, the appellant was self-represented, was taking unreasonable positions, lacked counsel due to factors beyond his control, and suffered a head injury.  He submits that given these circumstances, the trial judge, of his own initiative, ought to have adjourned the trial so that the appellant could confer with counsel.
[2]            We do not accept the appellant’s submission.
[3]            A reading of the transcript of proceedings reveals that the trial judge conducted a fair trial.  He repeatedly offered the appellant an adjournment of the trial but these offers were repeatedly refused.  He also pointed out the weaknesses of the appellant’s case in the absence of properly tendered evidence.
[4]            Moreover, we reject the argument, raised for the first time today, that counsel for the respondent was obliged to do more in the circumstances.  Again, a review of the transcript does not support such a complaint.
[5]            The appeal is dismissed.  Costs are awarded to the respondents in the amount of $2,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

“John Laskin J.A.”
“S.E. Pepall J.A.”
“D.M. Brown J.A,

My Complaint about Toronto divisional court ,court of appeal
Hearing date:2016-05-03
1-As a self represent litigant ,I have been discriminated by appeal judges,The lawyer James Cooper that I hired for the appeal also ignored by appeal judges.
2- Insurance company has assigned the judge Thomas Lederer to the case ,2 days before the trial ,judges have been switched and judge Lederer has come to the hearing as a judge.Original judge was judge Pollock who has been assigned to the case by chief of justice.
3-At the original hearing, even my submission has been cut by judge Lederer.
4-My lawyer has quit and I had to represent my self at the hearing so,I did not get fair hearing just because of being self represented litigants and I have been discriminated by judge Lederer for 3 days long hearing and I lost the trial.
5-I took the case to the appeal court and also lawyer James Cooper represented me at the hearing and unfortunately judges ignored him.
6- Judge Lederer was yelling and ignoring me while trial times and days.
7-Judge Lederer is a cocaine addict judge ,during the trial he was under the influence of cocaine.
8- I made my complaint to Canadian judicial council and they pulled this judge Thomas Lederer to Ottawa for 6 months then they brought him back to job 6 months later.They covered this mess and scandal up.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
……..…………………………………………………………………………………………
… Article 7. Has been violated by Canadian government
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

I am adding the letter from the Arbitrator Robinson for supporting my allegation and also copy of complaint letters have been submitted previously many times to the Canadian judicial council ,government of Canada ,Members of Canadian parliament, ministry of finance Ontario etc.
Also there are many other hearings done with same or similar violations have been done on those trials I would like to send you the link of the court transcript where everything has started,
https://personalinjuryinsurancelawyerstheworstcrooked.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/transcrip-of-the-tort-trial/
Arbitrator Robinson letter is here in this link shows and talk about my human rights,
http://wp.me/p4L1aX-gv
Upon request I would like to send you more information ,results of my cases or appeals or any information you need.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
– [ ]

United nation 2
CITATION: Ozdemir v. Economical Mutual Insurance Group, 2016 ONSC 5682 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-4963-00 DATE: 20160913
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: EROL OZDEMIR – and – ECONOMICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
GROUP BEFORE: André J.
COUNSEL: Erol Ozdemir, the Plaintiff, on his own behalf
T. Hanrahan, for the Defendant, Economical Mutual Insurance
Group
Harry Brown, for the non-party, Unica Insurance Inc. Arif Sahinbay, non-party
HEARD: July 11, 2016 at Brampton
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The defendant Economical Mutual Insurance Group (“Economical”) brings a motion for the following relief:
(a) an order compelling non-party Unica Insurance Inc. (“Unica”) to provide Economical with a complete copy of all hearing exhibits from a 2014 Financial Services Commission of Ontario (“FSCO”) arbitration between Arif Sahinbay (“Mr. Sahinbay”) and Unica within 30 days;
(b) an order compelling Unica to provide Economical with a complete copy of all surveillance and investigation within 30 days; and
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
-2-
(c) an order compelling the plaintiff, Erol Ozdemir (“Mr. Ozdemir”) to attend a further examination for discovery on a mutually agreed date within 90 days.
[2] Mr. Ozdemir opposes the motion on the grounds that there is no evidentiary basis for it, and furthermore, that disclosure of the exhibits sought by Economical would violate International Law and his rights to privacy.
[3] For the reasons given, the motion is granted.
Facts
[4] On December 16, 2011, Mr. Ozdemir filed a statement of claim against Economical following a November 24, 2009 accident in which he claimed benefits for loss of income, attendant care, medical expenses, housekeeping and home maintenance.
[5] Specifically, Mr. Ozdemir claimed benefits for attendant care, housekeeping and home maintenance services provided to him by Mr. Sahinbay, who was similarly involved in a motor vehicle accident on April 9, 2010. Mr. Sahinbay claimed similar benefits as Mr. Ozdemir against his insurance company, Unica.
[6] Mr. Sahinbay pursued a FSCO arbitration with respect to his October 2014 accident. During the FSCO proceedings on October 14, 2014, Mr. Sahinbay
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
-3-
advised the arbitrator that Mr. Ozdemir was his care attendant. He received compensation for ongoing attendant care, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits for services provided by Mr. Ozdemir from April 10, 2010.
[7] Similarly, Mr. Ozdemir claimed $6,000 a month for services allegedly provided to him by Mr. Sahinbay.
[8] Counsel for Economical cross-examined Mr. Ozdemir during a discovery hearing on February 21, 2013. One year later, in March 2014, Mr. Ozdemir was found to be catastrophically impaired. At the time of the first discovery, Economical was unaware that Mr. Ozdemir had provided attendant care to Mr. Sahinbay.
Court Orders
[9] Justice Emery ordered production of the FSCO arbitration transcripts on June 16, 2015.
Analysis
[10] This motion raises the following issues:
* (i)  Should production be ordered from Unica?
* (ii)  Should Economical be allowed to further examine Mr. Ozdemir?
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
-4-
Issue No. One: Should production be ordered from Unica?
[11] Mr. Ozdemir opposes production of any exhibits from Unica for a number of reasons. First, he submits that the exhibits sought include surveillance photographs which show his children. Disclosure of these photographs, he submits, would violate Canada’s Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21 and Article 16 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child. Second, he maintains that production is unnecessary given that Mr. Sahinbay has not provided him with any attendant care since April 2010.
[12] Mr. Ozdemir filed a letter, purportedly written by a person named Ganna Garovykh, who wrote that since March 26, 2009, she provided attendant care to Mr. Ozdemir at the request of Mr. Sahinbay. Specifically, the letter states that:
I have been available for him (re: Mr. Ozdemir) 24/7 because, Arif Sahinbay is involved with an accident on April 9-2010 (sic) since then I have been available for him 24/7 because, Arif was in terrible condition and he couldn’t help Erol for about 1 year.
[13] In my view, production from Unica is warranted given Mr. Sahinbay’s testimony in October 2014 that he received attendant care form Mr. Ozdemir and the latter’s claim that he received similar care from Mr. Sahinbay during the same period. Mr. Sahinbay denied to this court that he had provided such care to Mr. Ozdemir despite his testimony to the contrary during the FSCO hearings.
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
-5-
[14] Similarly, Mr. Ozdemir denies receiving attendant care from Mr. Sahinbay despite claiming compensation for such care in his statement of claim. The letter from Ms. Gorovykh is not helpful to his position. It is clearly hearsay. However, counsel for the defendant, Mr. Hanrahan, consented to Mr. Ozdemir relying on it for the truth of its contents.
[15] If Ms. Gorovykh provided attendant care to Mr. Ozdemir 24/7 after April 10, 2010, then there is simply no basis for the plaintiff’s claim for compensation for the care he claimed to have received from Mr. Sahinbay. Furthermore, if Mr. Sahinbay received attendant care from Mr. Ozdemir as he claimed to have received, then it raises questions regarding the conclusion that he has been catastrophically impaired as a result of his motor vehicle accident.
[16] Mr. Ozdemir opposes production of the surveillance photographs because it would violate his privacy rights. The Privacy Act has no application in this matter given that s. 2 provides that the Act relates to personal information held by a government institution rather than by a private company. In any event, production would not violate Mr. Ozdemir’s privacy rights. The surveillance purports to show Mr. Ozdemir out shopping with Mr. Sahinbay. It apparently shows him engaged in what may be construed as normal outdoor activities which may be relevant to his claim of catastrophic impairment.
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
-6-
[17] Mr. Ozdemir also opposes production because the surveillance photographs contain images of his children. There is no indication that the photographs depict Mr. Ozdemir’s children in any kind of private activity or that they violate their personal integrity. Second, the photographs are relevant to the litigation to enable Economical to respond to Mr. Ozdemir’s claims of catastrophic impairment. Economical is entitled to any evidence which may enable it to fully respond to Mr. Ozdemir’s claims.
Issue No. Two: Should Economical be allowed to further examine Mr. Ozdemir?
[18] Courts have generally made an order for further discovery of a litigant if such an order is necessary to fulfill the purposes of discovery. Further discovery is warranted where there has been an important change in the facts: see Benedetto v. Giannoulias, 2009 CanLII 29990 (ON SC), at para. 19.
[19] The purported change in Mr. Ozdemir’s condition between 2013 when he was first examined by Economical and 2014, when he was assessed as being catastrophically impaired, constitutes an important change in the facts. Economical is entitled to further question Mr. Ozdemir regarding the change in his condition. It is necessary that Economical be afforded an opportunity to question Mr. Ozdemir regarding his present medical condition and the attendant care, housekeeping and house maintenance expenses he now claims.
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
-7-
[20] Mr. Ozdemir cannot, on one hand, make a claim for compensation based on catastrophic impairment and maintain that Economical should not be afforded full opportunity to test these claims, on the other.
Conclusion
[21] Based on the above, I order that:
1. Unica Insurance Inc. shall provide Economical with a complete copy of all hearing exhibits from a 2014 FSCO arbitration hearing between Arif Sahinbay and Unica (FSCO File A12-003908) within thirty (30) days of this order;
2. Unica shall provide Economical with a complete copy of all surveillance and investigation of Mr. Sahinbay within thirty (30) days of this order; and
3. Mr. Ozdemir must attend a further examination for discovery on a mutually agreeable date within ninety (90) days of this order.
Costs
[22] Economical seeks costs in the amount of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis while Mr. Ozdemir seeks costs in the amount of $100.
[23] In assessing what quantum of costs are fair and reasonable in this matter, I give consideration to the following:
* (a)  Economical has been substantially successful.
* (b)  The matter involved a fair amount of preparation including the filing of a factum and book of authorities.
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
DATE: September 13, 2016
-8-
(c) The issues were not complex and related to settled issues of law.
[24] Based on the above, I order that Mr. Ozdemir shall pay costs to Economical Mutual Insurance Group fixed in the amount of $5,000 inclusive. This amount may be deducted from any benefits which Economical may be ordered to pay Mr. Ozdemir in settlement of his claims against the company.
___________________________ André J.
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)
DATE:
September 13, 2016
CITATION: Ozdemir v. Economical Mutual Insurance Group, 2016 ONSC 5682 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-4963-00 DATE: 20160913
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: EROL OZDEMIR – and – ECONOMICAL MUTUAL
INSURANCE GROUP BEFORE: André J.
COUNSEL: Erol Ozdemir, the Plaintiff, on his own behalf
T. Hanrahan, for the Defendant, Economical Mutual Insurance Group
Harry Brown, for the non- party, Unica Insurance Inc.
Arif Sahinbay, non-party

ENDORSEMENT

André J.
2016 ONSC 5682 (CanLII)

My Complaint about Brampton superior court of Justice

JUDGE IRVING W. ANDRÉ From The Brampton superior court of Justice as a federal judge
,The motion has been heard on Monday July 11-2016
The decision has been made in September 13-2016

I have received the motion decision today after 2 months and the decision was favour to the insurance company.From this judge , I wasn’t expecting anything less.

At the hearing I told this judge that there are laws for protection of privacy and I have given those laws to the judge hands.

1- By giving such decision this judge is violating privacy act Canada 1980-81-82-83.

2-By giving such decision this judge is violating international laws.

Article 16 of the United Nations
THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD Participation rights: having an active voice
Article 4 (Protection of rights),article 12 -13-14-15-16-17
B)Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 6. Has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 7. Has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 10.has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 12. Has been violated by the Canadian government

3-this judge has made discriminations against self represent litigants by not obeying CJC (Canadian judicial council)principles for the self represent litigants.

4-This judge doesn’t obey laws by violating national and international human rights.
-This judge has been told that at the beginning of this motion ,he doesn’t obey CJC(Canadian judicial council) principles for the self represent litigants that is why I simply asked him to adjournment for different judge to hear this motion.He made discriminations by not listening my request.

6-This judge shouldn’t have heard this motion and somehow insurance company assigned this judge to this motion.
7-On the decision ,judge also marked down my name as Erol Ozdemir,he made this mistake.


United nation 3
C. HORKINS, J.
(ORALLY)
CITATION: Sahinbay v. Unica Insurance Inc., 2016 ONSC 4031 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 227-15 DATE: 20160616
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
H. McLEAN, C. HORKINS, and L.A. PATTILLO JJ.
BETWEEN: ) ) ) Arif Sahinbay ) Applicant ) ) – and – ) ) Unica Insurance Inc. ) ) ) Respondent ) ) ) )
James Cooper, agent for the Applicant
Harry Brown, for Unica Insurance Inc. Michael Spagnolo, for The Financial
Services Commission of Ontario
) HEARD at Toronto: June 16, 2016

[1] The applicant, Arif Sahinbay, has brought an application for judicial review of the decision of Arbitrator Robinson dated March 9, 2015.
[2] By way of background, the applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on April 9, 2010 and as a result, he sustained injuries.
[3] The applicant claimed Statutory Accident Benefits (“SABs”) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Accidents on or after November 1, 1996 R.R.O. 1990 O Reg. 403/96 under the Insurance Act R.S.O. 1990 c.I.8., from Unica Insurance Company (“Unica”).
2016 ONSC 4031 (CanLII)
Page: 2
Specifically, he sought enhanced benefits due to being catastrophically impaired under s.2 (1.2), weekly non-earner benefits under s.12(1), payment for attendant care under s.16(1) and housekeeping expenses under s.22(1).
[4] The applicant also sought a special award against Unica under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act, which an arbitrator may grant when the insurer has unreasonably delayed or withheld payment.
[5] A dispute arose between the applicant and Unica regarding his entitlement to certain SABs.
[6] The applicant and Unica could not resolve their dispute and the applicant requested arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (“FSCO”). On March 9, 2015, after a lengthy hearing before Arbitrator Robinson, the applicant was awarded certain benefits and denied others.
[7] Section 283(1) of the Insurance Act, provides the applicant with a right to appeal the Arbitrator’s decision on a question of law only, to the Director. The applicant did not follow the direction of s. 283(1). Instead, he commenced an application for judicial review of Arbitrator Robinson’s decision.
[8] On September 29, 2015, Unica brought a motion before Justice Sanderson in the Divisional Court seeking an order that the applicant had no right to appeal the decision of Arbitrator Robinson.
2016 ONSC 4031 (CanLII)
Page: 3
[9] She correctly noted that the applicant has an obligation to follow the review process in the Insurance Act. Specifically he must exhaust his right of appeal under the Insurance Act. As a result, she stayed the application for judicial review.
[10] The applicant then returned to FSCO and filed a notice of appeal dated November 30, 2015, seeking to appeal Arbitrator Robinson’s decision. The appeal was assigned to David Evans, the Director’s Delegate.
[11] In a letter to the parties dated December 7, 2015, the Director’s Delegate stated that the appellant had filed his notice of appeal, after the expiration of 30 day time period for appealing. The Director’s Delegate refused to extend the time for the appeal.
[12] The only reason given by the applicant for his extension request was the fact that he had elected to proceed directly to Divisional Court rather than following s. 283(1) under the Insurance Act.
* [13]  The Director’s Delegate dismissed the appeal and stated as follows in his letter: 
“The only reason for the delay is that Mr. Sahinbay elected to proceed in another forum. I do not find that a reasonable ground for providing an extension where Mr. Sahinbay was fully aware of our process and chose to ignore it. 
Accordingly, the appeal is rejected, and we will be closing our file.”
* [14]  The matter before us today is an application for judicial review of Arbitrator Robinson’s
decision and not the decision of the Director’s Delegate. The applicant’s right to review the
2016 ONSC 4031 (CanLII)
Page: 4
Arbitrator’s decision is limited by s. 283(1) of the Insurance Act. It is the decision of the Director’s Delegate that he should be seeking judicial review of and not the decision of Arbitrator Robinson.
[15] This court has no jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review directly from the Arbitrator. As Sanderson J. explained, courts do not review administrative decisions until a final decision has been rendered in the administrative process.
[16] In this case, the applicant now has a final decision from the Director’s Delegate and it is that decision from which he should be seeking judicial review.
[17] In summary, we have no jurisdiction to hear the judicial review application that is before us and accordingly it is dismissed.
COSTS
[18] I have endorsed the application record as follows: “For oral reasons, application is dismissed and there will be no costs.”
___________________________
C. HORKINS, J.
___________________________
H. McLEAN, J.
2016 ONSC 4031 (CanLII)
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 16, 2016 Date of Release: June 20, 2016
Page: 5
___________________________
L.A. PATTILLO, J.
2016 ONSC 4031 (CanLII)
CITATION: Sahinbay v. Unica Insurance Inc., 2016 ONSC 4031 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 227-15 DATE: 20160616
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
H. McLEAN, C. HORKINS, and L.A.
BETWEEN:
Arif Sahinbay
– and –
Unica Insurance Inc.
PATTILLO JJ.
Applicant
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
C. HORKINS, J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 16, 2016 Date of Release: June 20, 2016
2016 ONSC 4031 (CanLII)

My Complaint about Toronto divisional court of appeal

1-Agent who represented me at this hearing Lawyer James Cooper has been ignored.
2-As a self represent litigant I have been discriminated.
3-After 2 hours of hearing finally they have decided that they have no jurisdiction over arbitrator decision ,that is how they want to interpret the law.
4- They ignored the final decision that my appeal application has been rejected by FSCO and they haven’t ruled anything about that decision on purpose.
5-since I am not criminal their behaviour wasn’t nice at all during the appeal process.
6-There is a pool system at this divisional court that is how they share insurance bribes.

7-Universal Declaration of Human Rights
……..…………………………………………………………………………………………
… Article 7. Has been violated by Canadian government
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
B)Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 6. Has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 7. Has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 10.has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 12. Has been violated by the Canadian government


Unites nations 4
1-I filled up private prosecutors particular against 2 insurance lawyer that they were involved with forgery and unfortunately they have been protected by other law society members which is Justice of peace.I made my complaint against 2 Justice of peace and they also have been covered by superior court of Justice Judge and attorney general.
2-Crown attorney at that hearing has been acting like an attorney of the accused lawyer and also I made my complaint against crown attorney to attorney general and what I see is another cover up.
3- Dog doesn’t bite dog ,garbage in garbage out ,I don’t get no where ,I made many complaint against many lawyers to the law society upper Canada who is responsible rule and regulate lawyers,unfortunately I did not get anywhere,either my complaint totally ignored not even 1 response or they closed the files with out proper investigations.
4 -I made many complaint against judges to Canadian judicial council(CJC) who is responsible to  rule and regulate judges ,again either I did not get any response or they simply closed the files with out proper investigations.
Note(copy of those complaint records will be attached.
5- I made many complaints against insurance illegal actions to Financial services commission of Ontario (FSCO)and unfortunately many complaint have been ignored and files are closed with out punishment and with out rule and regulate those insurance companies.
6- All this stories or attempts are on my web pages with proofed documents here is the example link.

https://personalinjuryinsurancelawyerstheworstcrooked.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/unica-insurance-is-removing-arbitrator-robinson-and-assigning-their-arbitrator-to-my-case-scandall/
7-I made many complaints against many insurance doctors for perjury or for their subjective reports.Unfortunately insurance doctors are protected either by Collage of physicians Ontario or Health profession appeal board .
8- These government agencies are controlled by Kathleen Wynne prime minister of Ontario ,who is serving and protecting insurance companies against citizens.
9-new Ontario ombudsman have been assigned by Kathleen Wynne and even ombudsman is only working for her ,not for citizens.
Here is the link of the Ontario ombudsman articles on my blog.

https://personalinjuryinsurancelawyerstheworstcrooked.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/angala-alibertis-revealed-herself-from-the-ontario-ombudsman

10-B)Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 6. Has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 7. Has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 10.has been violated by the Canadian government
Article 12. Has been violated by the Canadian government

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Canadian government has been complained to the UN human rights council for violations of UN human rights laws”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.