On March 22, 2021, Christopher Tuck, Kristine Haines-Chiarello, Anne Charette, and Orsolya Vancsody were Given Notice of Criminal Liability for Fraud, Breach of Trust, and Spoliation of Evidence for trespass upon My Right of Self determination, violating My Spiritual Faith, trespass upon autonomy over My right to determine reasonable health care for Self, and to not be compelled against My Will to seek out medical care or share My private, medical records in violation of Canada’s Charter and the U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by Canada in 1976.
“The ICCPR recognizes the inherent dignity of each individual and undertakes to promote conditions within states to allow the enjoyment of civil and political rights. Countries that have ratified the Covenant are obligated “to protect and preserve basic human rights… [and] “compel[ed] to take administrative, judicial, and legislative measures in order to protect the rights enshrined in the treaty and to provide an effective remedy.” – Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Section 7 also protects a sphere of personal autonomy involving “inherently private choices” that go to the “core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence” (Godbout v. Longueuil (City),  3 S.C.R. 844 at paragraph 66; Association of Justice Counsel v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 SCC 55 at paragraph 49). Where state compulsions or prohibitions affect such choices, s. 7 may be engaged (A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30, at paragraphs 100-102; Blencoe, supra at paragraphs 49-54; Siemens v. Manitoba (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 6 at paragraph 45) This aspect of liberty includes the right to refuse medical treatment (A.C., supra, at paragraphs 100-102, 136) and the right to make “reasonable medical choices” without threat of criminal prosecution: R. v. Smith, 2015 SCC 34 at paragraph 18. It may also include the ability to choose where one intends to live (Godbout, supra), as well as a protected sphere of parental decision-making for parents to ensure their children’s well-being, e.g., a right to make decisions concerning a child’s education and health (B.(R.), supra, at paragraph 80). It does not, however, encompass lifestyle choices such as the smoking of marihuana (R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine,  3 SCR 571 at paragraphs 86-87; R. v. Clay,  3 S.C.R. 735 at paragraph 32). Conditions of employment requiring employees to be on standby duty, and therefore less available to their families for several weeks a year, do not engage the s. 7 liberty interest (Association of Justice Counsel, supra at paragraph 51).
All members of Ontario Works were made aware of their legal obligations with respect to both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and failed to provide any remedy or lawful excuse for their trespass upon My right of Self determination, and to freely dispose of My natural wealth without prejudice to foreign obligations, contrary to Part 1, Article 1, sections 1 and 2 of the ICCPR, and in violation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 7 which specifically addresses an individual’s right to autonomy over One’s health care and to not be compelled to seek out medical advice under threat of economic duress.
Further to the forestated legal obligations, Ontario Works was clearly advised that the Ontario Works Act does not have the FORCE of law to trespass upon rights protected by Canada’s Charter and this obligation is further endorsed by Canada’s Library of Parliament which clearly states the authority of the Charter over provincial and municipal codes, statutes and acts as follows:
Of broader scope – and the purpose of this paper – are the quasi-constitutional federal, provincial and territorial human rights laws that serve to protect individuals from discrimination in areas such as employment, service, education and housing. While these laws vary in terms of precise content, in general, they all serve to prohibit an individual or organization from discriminating against an employee, tenant or service-user on specified grounds, such as those outlined in section 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
Compelling an individual to provide proof of birth registration is a violation of the Act and a criminal offence, as One cannot be discriminated against for their nationality or ethnic origin. This goes hand in hand with ‘religion’ and trespass upon My Spiritual belief, as I identify as a Sovereign nation under God, which is well known to all service representatives of Ontario Works.
The rights afforded by Canada’s Charter specifically apply to service providers as stated in the Library of Parliament under the ‘Examination of the Duty to Accommodate in the Human Rights Context’ as follows:
“Nevertheless, the Charter is generally of limited application, as it servers to protect individuals only from the actions, policies and legislation of government, not from those of other individuals or organizations.”Library of Parliament, Examination of Duty to Accommodate in the Human Rights Context
So it is clear that Ontario Works has violated Canadian Law, International Law and their determination to do so after being made aware of these legal and lawful argument shows that there was malicious intent to cause harm, or ‘mens rea’ which is defined as follows:
“the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime”
Ontario Works representative Orsolya Vancsody is guilty of fraud for Signing a Mandamus acknowledging the rights Presented in this Default Judgment with no intention to Honour the obligation. Spoliation of evidence is for informing Me that Ontario Works has destroyed the Mandamus Signed by Orsi and all other Public Notices they were Given copies of that have been filed with Offices of the Canadian government of Superior Jurisdiction and authority to Ontario Works and the Ontario Works Act.
Under Canada’s Criminal Code:
- 380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
- (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
- (b) is guilty
- Marginal note:Minimum punishment(1.1) When a person is prosecuted on indictment and convicted of one or more offences referred to in subsection (1), the court that imposes the sentence shall impose a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years if the total value of the subject-matter of the offences exceeds one million dollars.
Breach of trust by public officer
122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of their office, commits fraud or a breach of trust, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person, is guilty of
- (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
- (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
137 Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
These Default Judgments are final and apply to all service employees of Ontario Works privy to these correspondences, which also includes Clara Freire, Director of Ontario Works who suggested My assertion of these rights was ‘harassment’ of staff. To fail to respond to legal obligations and suggest Giving Notice of Criminal Liability for failing to do so is harassment is a form of psychological abuse known as ‘gaslighting’.
In addition to criminal prosecution, if My right to freely dispose of My natural wealth without prejudice to foreign obligations is not Honoured by Canada and its Ministries, I Will be as King for $11,000,000.00 in compensation and Will request that the bonds of all responsible individuals who are a party to these crimes be revoked.
Guilty parties of all charges stated herein are:
Christopher Tuck, Kristine Haines-Chiarello, Clara Freire, Anne Charette and Orsolya Vancsody.
Honourable Member of Parliament Francois-Philippe Champagne has been Notified of these crimes and Will be added as a conspirator if he fails to fulfill his legal obligation to provide a judicial remedy.
Plenty of opportunity to respond to these allegations was Given to Ontario Works as is clearly shown on the International Public Record, including a Courtesy Warning and Notice of Default Judgment.
Nihil Dicit – “He says nothing” (in defense of their criminal Acts)
Res Judicata – “Judgment is final and legally binding”