HRTO Notice of Constitutional Question: McLean v. TPS Goldview

---

 This page provides the complete HRTO Notice of Constitutional Question filed in McLean v. TPS/Goldview, including supporting materials, statutory grounds, Charter issues, and procedural context. It forms part of LawCap’s structured archive documenting constitutional challenges within Ontario’s human rights adjudicative framework. 

Declaration #1 is the Applicant’s first sworn statement in McLean v. TPS/Goldview, filed November 5, 2024, and it is the document that blew open the entire case. It lays out, in precise chronological detail, how the Landlord and Goldview allegedly orchestrated Unlawful Lockouts, how TPS 14 Division allegedly relied on a False Pretense Email to lure the Applicant into the station, and how the arrest was executed without a warrant, without investigation, and without any statutory compliance under the Criminal Code.

The declaration describes the alleged Fictitious Warrant, Fictitious Criminal Harassment Warning, and the seizure and delivery of the Applicant’s property and medication without consent. It outlines how the Applicant’s disabilities were allegedly exploited, how the arrest violated Charter ss. 7, 8, and 12, and how the conduct fits the legal architecture of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, misfeasance in public office, and privacy breaches.

It also contextualizes the retaliatory nature of the criminal complaint following the Applicant’s successful LTB motion on October 1, 2024, and provides comparative analysis to administrative search‑and‑seizure jurisprudence, SPPA requirements, and HRTO expedited‑proceeding rules.

This declaration is not just evidence — it is the anchor of the HRTO proceeding, the document that frames the misconduct, the Charter breaches, the retaliatory complaint, and the systemic failures across TPS, Goldview, and the Landlord. It is published for public interest, legal education, and transparency.

Declaration #2, sworn March 31, 2025, is the Applicant’s second formal evidentiary statement in McLean v. TPS/Goldview (HRTO File 2024‑58615‑I). This declaration expands the factual and legal foundation of the discrimination claim, focusing on mental health profiling, negative stereotyping, adverse treatment, and the protected ground of disability under section 2 of the Human Rights Code.

The declaration introduces three key exhibits:

• Exhibit A: Text      messages demonstrating negative attitudes, prejudicial comments, and      stereotyping communicated by or through Ms. Artopoulos, Goldview, and Ms.      Ferguson.
• Exhibit B: A      document filed by Ms. Artopoulos at the LTB containing false allegations      and references to “substance abuse,” forming part of the Applicant’s claim      of discriminatory assumptions and stigma.
• Exhibit C: CAMH      FIPPA‑produced images related to the October 25, 2024 theft of the      Applicant’s property, which the Applicant alleges involved the Landlord      and constituted adverse treatment linked to disability.

Declaration #2 outlines the Applicant’s belief that his mental and physical disabilities were a factor—though not necessarily the sole factor—in the adverse decisions and treatments he experienced from the Respondents. It relies on established human rights jurisprudence, including Hendershott, Kelly v. UBC (No. 3), and OHRC guidance on mental health discrimination, stereotyping, stigma, and the legal test for Mental Health Profiling (MHP). The declaration details how profiling can be inferred through circumstantial evidence such as negative comments, contradictory explanations, deviations from normal practice, unprofessional tone, and misinterpretation of innocent conduct.

The Applicant asserts a prima facie case of discrimination, supported by evidence of prejudicial assumptions, failure to accommodate ADHD and other disabilities, misuse of medication, and adverse decisions connected to lockouts, FOB deactivation, and interactions with TPS. The declaration is filed for both general and specific purposes, forming a critical component of the HRTO record and supporting the Applicant’s request for findings of liability under the Human Rights Code.

Declaration #3, sworn April 11, 2025, is the Applicant’s third formal evidentiary statement in McLean v. TPS/Goldview (HRTO File 2024‑58615‑I). This declaration connects the HRTO proceeding to three parallel legal processes: the RTA proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Criminal Court Dismissal Motion, and the LECA investigation involving the Impugned Officers. While factual overlap exists, the Applicant seeks distinct relief under the Human Rights Code for discrimination in the protected areas of disability, accommodation, and services.

The declaration introduces Exhibit A, the filed and served 2nd Updated Motion Record for the Applicant’s Criminal Court Dismissal Motion. The Applicant states that neither the Crown nor affected persons—including the Landlord—have complied with the Criminal Court Rules, resulting in an unopposed dismissal motion. The declaration alleges that Goldview and Ms. Ferguson discriminated against the Applicant through threats, extortion, and adverse treatment connected to the Unlawful Lockouts, FOB deactivation, and constructive seizure of his property.

The Applicant further alleges that Ms. Artopoulos engaged in discriminatory conduct by mocking or making negative comments about his mental disorders, mental disabilities, and physical disabilities, forming part of a pattern of adverse decisions linked to protected grounds. The declaration also asserts ongoing discrimination by TPS and its officers, beginning before October 2, 2024 and continuing to the present date, including the False Pretense Email, the Fictitious Harassment Warning, and the Fictitious Judicial Warrant Representation.

Declaration #3 also provides notice that the Applicant will bring motions to amend the HRTO Application to include new material particulars arising since November 2024, and to add additional parties to the proceeding. The Applicant notes that none of the respondents have filed sworn evidence in any related proceeding, nor have they responded to Motion #1, in breach of HRTO Specific Rules.

This declaration forms a critical component of the HRTO record, documenting discrimination, procedural misconduct, retaliatory actions, and systemic failures across TPS, Goldview, the Landlord, and associated parties. It is published for public interest, transparency, and legal education. 

Declaration #4, sworn April 11, 2025, is the Applicant’s fourth evidentiary filing in McLean v. TPS/Goldview (HRTO File 2024‑58615‑I). This declaration introduces Exhibit A, a set of documents filed in the parallel Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (ONSC). These materials form part of the broader factual matrix connecting the HRTO discrimination claim to the Applicant’s unlawful lockout, dispossession, and ongoing disputes with the Landlord and Goldview Property Management.

The declaration adopts all definitions from previously filed HRTO documents and confirms that the evidence is tendered for proper purposes under the Human Rights Code. Exhibit A includes the Applicant’s Notice of Application filed in the ONSC under ss. 207(2) of the RTA and Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The ONSC application seeks reinstatement, reoccupation, compensation, aggravated damages, administrative fines, preventative orders, and declarations relating to unlawful lockouts, FOB deactivation, unauthorized entries, threats, extortion, and abuse of process by the Landlord.

The declaration situates the HRTO claim within a multi‑forum legal landscape:

• HRTO:      discrimination based on disability, adverse treatment, mental health      profiling, and failure to accommodate.
• RTA/ONSC:      unlawful lockouts, constructive seizure, threats, extortion, unauthorized      entries, and statutory breaches under ss. 22–24 of the RTA.
• Criminal Court: the      Applicant’s Dismissal Motion arising from the False Pretense Email,      Fictitious Harassment Warning, and Fictitious Judicial Warrant      Representation.
• LECA:      complaints involving TPS officers and alleged misconduct.

Declaration #4 reinforces the Applicant’s position that the Respondents’ conduct—individually and collectively—forms a pattern of adverse treatment linked to disability, protected grounds, and systemic failures across policing, property management, and tenancy administration. It also confirms that the Applicant continues to rely on cross‑referenced evidence from the RTA proceeding to support findings of discrimination, adverse impact, and breaches of the Human Rights Code.

This declaration is published for public interest, transparency, and legal education, forming a key component of the HRTO litigation archive documenting discrimination, unlawful eviction, procedural misconduct, and abuse of power. 

Declaration #5, sworn April 11, 2025, is the Applicant’s fifth evidentiary filing in McLean v. TPS/Goldview (HRTO File 2024‑58615‑I). This declaration focuses on discriminatory attitudes, prejudicial statements, and stereotyping by the Landlord, forming a critical component of the Applicant’s claim of discrimination under the Human Rights Code in the protected areas of disability, services, and occupancy.

The declaration introduces Exhibit A, containing documents filed by the Landlord in the A2 Proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board. These materials include unparticularized allegations of “theft,” “substance abuse,” and descriptions of the Applicant as “unhinged,” “reckless,” and “unpredictable.” The Applicant categorically denies these allegations and relies on them as evidence of prejudicial attitudes, negative stereotyping, and discriminatory decision‑making by the Landlord.

Declaration #5 also details a series of discriminatory statements made by the Landlord about racialized persons, religious groups, ethnic backgrounds, and individuals with mental or physical disabilities. These statements, relayed directly or through family members, demonstrate entrenched prejudicial views and stereotypes that the Applicant alleges influenced the Landlord’s treatment of him, including unlawful lockouts, threats, extortion, and adverse decisions connected to his disabilities.

The declaration asserts that the Landlord holds the most overt and intentional discriminatory attitudes among all respondents, and that these attitudes were not subconscious but deliberate. The Applicant submits that while private opinions are not within the HRTO’s jurisdiction, discriminatory conduct in the protected areas of services and occupancy falls squarely within the Tribunal’s mandate.

Declaration #5 further states that the Landlord abandoned her A2 Application and failed in her motion to shorten time, focusing instead on espousing discriminatory views rather than complying with statutory requirements. The Applicant gives notice that he will seek an order requiring the Landlord to undergo sensitivity training relating to disabilities, racialized persons, and other protected characteristics before she is permitted to provide any services or occupancy‑related functions.

This declaration forms a key part of the HRTO record, documenting explicit prejudice, discriminatory stereotypes, and adverse treatment connected to protected grounds. It is published for public interest, transparency, and legal education within the broader McLean v. TPS/Goldview litigation archive.

Declaration #6, sworn April 12, 2025, is the Applicant’s sixth evidentiary filing in McLean v. TPS/Goldview (HRTO File 2024‑58615‑I). This declaration responds directly to the Landlord’s request to dismiss the HRTO Application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code. The Applicant confirms, after reviewing all ongoing legal matters, that no civil proceeding exists in which he is seeking an order under section 46.1 of the Code, nor is there any court action arising out of the same facts involving the Landlord.

The declaration cites the relevant statutory framework, including section 34(11) and section 46.1 of the Human Rights Code, and the definitions of “court” and “order” under Rule 1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Applicant distinguishes between tribunal proceedings and court proceedings, noting that the Ontario Court of Justice (OCJ) operates under the Courts of Justice Act and does not engage section 46.1 relief. He confirms that he has not commenced any civil proceeding seeking monetary compensation or restitution for infringement of Code rights under section 46.1.

The Applicant asserts that the Landlord’s dismissal request is based on a false premise, unsupported by any evidence, and constitutes an abuse of process. He requests that the HRTO dismiss the Landlord’s request forthwith unless she can produce a copy of the alleged court proceeding she relies upon. The declaration emphasizes that the Applicant has acted in good faith, reviewed all relevant records, and unequivocally confirms that no such proceeding exists.

Declaration #6 forms a critical part of the HRTO record, clarifying jurisdiction, correcting misstatements by the Landlord, and reinforcing the Applicant’s entitlement to proceed with his discrimination claim under the Human Rights Code. It is published for public interest, transparency, and legal education within the broader McLean v. TPS/Goldview litigation archive. 

Declaration #7, sworn April 13, 2025, is the Applicant’s seventh evidentiary filing in McLean v. TPS/Goldview (HRTO File 2024‑58615‑I). This declaration addresses two procedural requests raised by respondents: (1) the Landlord’s request to dismiss the HRTO Application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, and (2) the TPS Respondents’ request to defer the Application under section 45 of the Code and Rule 14 of the HRTO Rules.

The Applicant confirms, after reviewing all records in the Record of Proceeding (ROP), that no civil proceeding exists in which he is seeking an order under section 46.1 of the Human Rights Code. He cites section 34(11) and section 46.1 of the Code, along with the definitions of “court” and “order” under Rule 1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, to demonstrate that the Landlord’s dismissal request is based on a false premise. The Applicant requests that the HRTO dismiss the Landlord’s request forthwith unless she can produce evidence of the alleged court proceeding, which he asserts does not exist.

Declaration #7 also responds to the TPS Respondents’ request for deferral. The Applicant notes that he is unaware of any tribunal or legal body known as the “Toronto Police Service” capable of adjudicating matters similar to those before the HRTO. He requests that the TPS Respondents provide a file number or evidence of the alleged “ongoing proceeding,” and submits that the deferral request is unsupported and legally impossible. The declaration quotes Rule 14.1–14.5 of the HRTO Rules and explains why no terms of deferral could be complied with, given the absence of any such proceeding.

The Applicant further emphasizes that the HRTO Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and cannot be finally disposed of without oral submissions and written reasons, as required by section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code. He asserts that both the dismissal request and the deferral request must be rejected so that the Application can proceed under sections 40 and 41 of the Code, which require fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the merits.

Declaration #7 forms a critical part of the HRTO record, clarifying jurisdiction, correcting misstatements by respondents, and reinforcing the Applicant’s entitlement to proceed with his discrimination claim. It is published for public interest, transparency, and legal education within the broader McLean v. TPS/Goldview litigation archive.

Declaration #8, sworn April 22, 2025, is the Applicant’s eighth evidentiary filing in McLean v. TPS/Goldview (HRTO File 2024‑58615‑I). This declaration continues the Applicant’s structured presentation of facts, statutory analysis, and procedural responses within the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s jurisdiction. It builds upon the Record of Proceeding (ROP) established through Declarations #1–7 and addresses new developments, respondent positions, and the Applicant’s ongoing requests for relief under the Human Rights Code.

Declaration #8 reinforces the Applicant’s position that the HRTO Application is properly before the Tribunal, that no parallel civil proceeding exists seeking relief under section 46.1 of the Code, and that no deferral is warranted under section 45 or Rule 14. The declaration responds to any newly raised procedural objections, clarifies jurisdictional boundaries between the HRTO and other bodies, and confirms that the Applicant has not commenced any court proceeding arising out of the same facts that would bar or defer the HRTO Application.

The declaration also expands the evidentiary record by incorporating additional documents, communications, or filings relevant to the Applicant’s discrimination claims involving disability, adverse treatment, mental health profiling, stereotyping, and the protected areas of services and occupancy. It situates these facts within the broader multi‑forum context of the Applicant’s legal matters, including the RTA/ONSC proceeding, the Criminal Court Dismissal Motion, and the TPS‑related issues addressed in earlier declarations.

Declaration #8 further asserts that respondents have not complied with HRTO procedural requirements, have not filed responsive materials to the Applicant’s motions, and have advanced requests unsupported by evidence. The Applicant requests that the Tribunal proceed with the Application in accordance with sections 40 and 41 of the Human Rights Code, ensuring a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the merits.

This declaration forms a significant part of the HRTO litigation archive, documenting ongoing discrimination, procedural irregularities, and jurisdictional clarity. It is published for public interest, transparency, and legal education within the broader McLean v. TPS/Goldview record. 

Declaration #9, sworn April 27, 2025, is the Applicant’s ninth evidentiary filing in McLean v. TPS/Goldview (HRTO File 2024‑58615‑I). This declaration introduces fresh evidence relating to the Applicant’s missing property, cross‑division TPS involvement, and newly discovered misconduct by individuals connected to the Landlord, TPS, and other actors. It expands the Record of Proceeding (ROP) and provides critical factual updates relevant to the Applicant’s discrimination claims under the Human Rights Code.

The declaration attaches Exhibit A, consisting of emails sent by the Applicant to counsel for the Landlord requesting the location of his property from Rental Unit 410 as of September 20, 2024. The Applicant received no response. These emails detail newly uncovered information suggesting that some or all of the Applicant’s property may have been transferred to or held by TPS 52 Division, rather than TPS 14 Division. The Applicant identifies Detective Abdulhameed K. Virani (“Detective Abdul”) as the officer who visited him in the jail cell on October 2, 2024, noting that he is from 52 Division, not 14 Division.

Declaration #9 further outlines concerns arising from the absence of a TPS case file number on the Form 2 issued at the time of arrest, suggesting cross‑division involvement. The Applicant distinguishes between property inside Rental Unit 410 on September 20, 2024, and property stolen on October 25, 2024 from CAMH, alleging that the Landlord’s former son‑in‑law, Mr. Papadimitropoulos, was involved in unauthorized conduct relating to the latter theft.

The declaration also identifies new evidence involving Court Officer Ms. Chrystin Frugoni‑Rojas, who allegedly swore fraudulent information supporting an arrest warrant on September 23, 2024. The Applicant connects Ms. Frugoni‑Rojas to multiple individuals with ties to Seneca College, including Justice of the Peace George Jiri and the Landlord, suggesting overlapping networks relevant to the misconduct. The Applicant asserts that the sworn information is unreliable, that the arrest warrant should never have been endorsed, and that TPS officers knowingly relied on false information, leading to the False Pretense Email and the Fictitious Warning.

Declaration #9 also identifies Detective Richard Petrie of 52 Division as responsible for the theft of the Applicant’s property, and notes that a Deputy Crown at the Ministry of the Attorney General’s Criminal Law Division shares the Petrie surname, raising questions about potential relationships or conflicts.

The Applicant alleges that the Landlord’s discriminatory attitudes and adverse treatment factored into the events surrounding the theft, lockouts, and subsequent misconduct. He indicates that he will amend his pleadings to add parties and include the newly discovered evidence. The declaration concludes by noting the irony of the timing: the theft occurred on October 25, 2024, one day after the Landlord was served with the HRTO Application.

Declaration #9 forms a major expansion of the HRTO record, documenting fresh evidence, cross‑division TPS involvement, property‑handling irregularities, sworn‑information defects, and discriminatory conduct connected to protected grounds. It is published for public interest, transparency, and legal education within the broader McLean v. TPS/Goldview litigation archive. 

Declaration #10, sworn May 28, 2025, is the Applicant’s tenth evidentiary filing in McLean v. TPS/Goldview (HRTO File 2024‑58615‑I). This declaration is the most extensive and technically detailed entry in the Record of Proceeding (ROP) to date, addressing alleged false information, forgery, procedural defects, and cross‑institutional misconduct involving TPS officers, court personnel, and individuals connected to the Landlord.

The declaration introduces Exhibit A, containing the alleged “Purported Rojas Information” — a Form 2 Information purportedly sworn by Court Officer Christyn Frugoni‑Rojas. The Applicant asserts that the document is a false document, potentially perjurious, and void ab initio. He identifies structural defects in the jurat, missing text on the signature page, absence of cited sources of belief, and inconsistencies with Criminal Code requirements. The Applicant demands inspection of the original document and its metadata under s.508.1(2) of the Criminal Code to determine whether the Adobe digital certificate was altered.

Declaration #10 also challenges the classification of the matter as “IPV,” noting that the Applicant and the Purported Complainant were not intimate partners at the relevant time, and that the alleged communication on September 22, 2024 never occurred. The Applicant situates the Purported Rojas Information within the broader context of the Landlord’s A2 Application, her unparticularized allegations, and her admissions that the Applicant became the sole tenant under s.104(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The declaration expands into a detailed chronology involving the Landlord, the Purported Complainant, Victory Wine & Spirits Inc., and the Applicant’s financial contributions to the rental unit. It also documents the Applicant’s prior unlawful lockouts, the Delorenzi Order granting an urgent LTB hearing, and the Landlord’s failed attempts to shorten time in both the T2 and A2 proceedings.

A major portion of Declaration #10 addresses TPS misconduct, including: • the absence of a case file number on the Form 2; • the Applicant’s belief that the arrest warrant was improperly endorsed or never existed; • concerns about the “Intake Court Endorsement” (ICE) document bearing an invalid digital signature; • the Applicant’s belief that a justice of the ONSC with a family‑law background may have been improperly involved; • the False Pretense Email by Constable Romano; • the Fictitious Warning by DC Kolankowski; • cross‑division involvement by Detective Abdulhameed Virani of 52 Division.

Declaration #10 also introduces extensive evidence of identity theft and impersonationfollowing the October 25, 2024 theft of the Applicant’s property at CAMH. The declaration includes CAMH security images, Toronto Public Library (TPL) account logs, and a forged laptop‑loan agreement signed in the Applicant’s name. The Applicant identifies former TD Insurance SABS manager Andrew Papadimitropoulos and TDI employee David Karat as individuals involved in unauthorized access, impersonation, and manipulation of the Applicant’s TPL account.

The declaration concludes by asserting that the Purported Rojas Information, the ICE document, and all subsequent actions flowing from them are invalid, and that the Crown’s failure to disclose the alleged arrest warrant violates Stinchcombe obligations. The Applicant reserves all rights to pursue Rule 23 relief and judicial review.

Declaration #10 forms a cornerstone of the HRTO litigation archive, documenting alleged false information, forged judicial endorsements, cross‑division TPS misconduct, identity theft, and discriminatory treatment connected to the Applicant’s disabilities. It is published for public interest, transparency, and legal education within the broader McLean v. TPS/Goldview record. 

These Rule 23 submissions, filed May 28, 2025, form the Applicant’s motion for interim and interlocutory relief in McLean v. TPS/Goldview (HRTO File 2024‑58615‑I). The motion seeks substantive orders under section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Human Rights Code, and the HRTO Specific Rules, arising from newly discovered evidence involving the alleged falsification, manipulation, or improper creation of an “Intake Court Endorsement” used by TPS officers to justify the Applicant’s arrest on October 2, 2024.

The submissions adopt all definitions from the HRTO Record of Proceeding (ROP) and argue that the “Purported Rojas Information” and the “Intake Court Endorsement” strike at the bedrock of the administration of justice. The Applicant asserts that the Intake Court Endorsement may be a false document, forged document, or non‑existent arrest warrant, and that TPS officers relied on it to effect an arrest without lawful authority. The motion argues that if no valid Form 7 warrant existed, then the TPS Respondents’ conduct constitutes adverse treatment and adverse decisions in violation of the Human Rights Code, with the Applicant’s disabilities being a factor.

The submissions rely on jurisprudence including Landreville, Bridge Finance, Toussaint, Dua, Stinchcombe, and Toronto Star v. AGO, emphasizing the open court principle, the requirement for adjudicative records, and the HRTO’s power to issue substantive interim orders. The Applicant argues that the HRTO cannot defer or ignore the issue, as fraudulent or falsified Intake Court Endorsements—if systemic—would undermine Charter rights across Ontario.

The motion seeks ten interlocutory orders, including: • preservation of all TPS records relating to the Purported Rojas Information and Intake Court Endorsement; • production of all underlying documents exchanged between TPS, Crown counsel, and any justice involved; • affidavits verifying searches and confirming whether documents were deleted or destroyed; • production orders directed at the ONCJ (Brampton), ONCJ (10 Armoury), and ONSC; • production orders directed at Crown counsel; • production orders directed at the Landlord and Goldview; • a sworn affidavit from the Landlord regarding her presence at CAMH on October 25, 2024; • leave to amend the HRTO Application nunc pro tunc to include new material facts relating to the theft of the Applicant’s property.

The submissions emphasize that Charter‑related factual determinations cannot occur in a vacuum and require a robust evidentiary record. The Applicant argues that the HRTO must act to ensure transparency, accountability, and compliance with the open court principle, and that the requested orders are necessary to determine whether the arrest was lawful, whether documents were falsified, and whether discrimination occurred.

These Rule 23 submissions form a critical part of the HRTO litigation archive, documenting alleged forged judicial endorsements, disclosure failures, systemic procedural irregularities, and discriminatory treatment connected to the Applicant’s disabilities. They are published for public interest, transparency, and legal education within the broader McLean v. TPS/Goldview record.

These June 12, 2025 submissions form the Applicant’s formal request for judgment on liability in McLean v. TPS/Goldview (HRTO File 2024‑58615‑I). The submissions consolidate the Applicant’s evidence, declarations, and procedural history from October 2024 onward, and ask the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to determine liability based on the undisputed factual record and the Respondents’ failure to file any responsive materials.

The submissions argue that the Applicant has established a prima facie case of discrimination under the Human Rights Code in the protected areas of services and accommodation. They detail adverse treatment and adverse decisions by the TPS Respondents, Goldview Property Management, and the Landlord, including unlawful lockouts, threats, extortion, misuse of disability‑related information, mental health profiling, and reliance on a purported “Intake Court Endorsement” that the Applicant alleges was false, forged, or never validly issued.

The Applicant submits that the Respondents’ conduct—individually and collectively—meets the legal test for discrimination:

1. The Applicant has protected characteristics and disabilities.
2. He experienced adverse treatment and adverse decisions.
3. His disabilities were a factor in that treatment.

The submissions further note that no Respondent filed a response to the Applicant’s Notice of Motion #1 (expedited proceedings), nor to the Applicant’s earlier declarations, nor to the Applicant’s Rule 23 motion. The Applicant argues that the HRTO must now determine liability based on the uncontested record, consistent with sections 40 and 41 of the Human Rights Code, which require fair, just, and expeditious resolution of applications.

The submissions also address the Tribunal’s obligations under section 43(2) of the Code, emphasizing that an application within jurisdiction cannot be finally disposed of without oral submissions and written reasons. The Applicant notes that the Tribunal did not respond to these liability submissions and later, on its own initiative, purported to stall the proceeding pending the outcome of the criminal matter—despite the fact that criminal proceedings cannot determine discrimination, adverse impact, or Code‑based liability.

These Judgment on Liability submissions form a critical part of the HRTO record, documenting the Applicant’s request for a merits determination, the Respondents’ silence, and the Tribunal’s subsequent procedural irregularities. They are published for public interest, transparency, and legal education within the broader McLean v. TPS/Goldview litigation archive.

Declaration #11, sworn May 30, 2025, is the Applicant’s eleventh evidentiary filing in McLean v. TPS, Goldview et al. (HRTO File 2024‑58615‑I). This declaration confirms full service of the Applicant’s Rule 23 Motion on all known interested parties and adopts the factual content of the service‑related email correspondence as evidence in the HRTO proceeding.

The declaration also provides the Applicant’s identification of a female individual captured in CAMH security footage on October 25, 2024, at approximately 1:11 p.m., whom the Applicant believes to be Respondent Aphrodite Artopoulos. The Applicant bases this identification on prior observations of her clothing, physical appearance, and distinctive tunic style. The declaration invites the Respondent to provide sworn evidence to the contrary.

Declaration #11 further contextualizes this identification within a broader pattern of conduct by the Landlord, including statements made after the Applicant’s motor vehicle accident, allegations about insurance benefits, emotional reactions to the HRTO Application, and unparticularized accusations of theft and substance abuse in the Landlord’s August 2024 LTB filings. The Applicant asserts that these behaviours demonstrate animus, fear, and discriminatory attitudes toward his disabilities.

The declaration also expands on the Applicant’s concerns regarding the “Purported Rojas Information” and the “Intake Court Endorsement,” reiterating his belief that the alleged arrest warrant was false, forged, or improperly created. Declaration #11 outlines the Applicant’s legal reasoning under the Criminal Code, including requirements for laying an Information, telecommunication‑based Informations under s.508.1, the role of justices of the peace, and the concept of an “originating courthouse.” The Applicant asserts that he is entitled to all underlying adjudicative records from whichever courthouse received or processed the Information, and that these records are not subject to FIPPA restrictions.

The declaration also documents the Applicant’s service of his Rule 23 Motion on senior judicial officials of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, including the Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice, and Regional Senior Justice, to ensure proper notice and to facilitate identification of the originating courthouse. The Applicant emphasizes that without knowing the originating courthouse, he cannot lawfully request the underlying records necessary to advance his HRTO Application.

Declaration #11 concludes by asserting that the Respondents’ conduct—including the alleged false arrest warrant, the theft of property, the lockouts, and the discriminatory treatment—constitutes adverse treatment under sections 1 and 2 of the Human Rights Code. The Applicant challenges all Respondents to provide strict proof to the contrary and affirms his right to equal treatment in services and accommodation.

This declaration forms a critical part of the HRTO litigation archive, documenting service, identification evidence, Criminal Code analysis, and the Applicant’s ongoing efforts to obtain adjudicative records necessary to advance his human rights claims.

Declaration #12, sworn June 17, 2025, provides the Applicant’s detailed evidentiary record supporting his allegation that the Toronto Police Service and multiple TPS Respondents—including Constable Romano, Detective Constable Kolankowski, Sergeant Cassidy, Superintendent Sinopoli (14 Division), Superintendent Khan (52 Division), and Detective Abdulhameed K. Virani (52 Division)—breached his Section 8 Charter right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

The declaration outlines the Applicant’s repeated, unanswered requests for a copy of the alleged arrest warrant beginning on October 2, 2024, the date of his arrest. Despite 259 days passing, no warrant has ever been produced. The Applicant asserts that this non‑production is dispositive of a Section 8 violation under the Criminal Code and the Charter, referencing the mandatory duties in section 29 of the Criminal Code and jurisprudence such as R. v. Bohn (2000 BCCA 239), which confirms that officers must carry and produce the warrant when requested, absent exigent circumstances.

Declaration #12 also expands on the Applicant’s analysis of the “Purported Rojas Information” and the “Intake Court Endorsement,” reiterating his belief that the document provided by TPS is not a Form 7 arrest warrant, is not signed by a judicial officer, and may be a false or forged document. The declaration reviews Criminal Code provisions governing Informations, telecommunication‑based Informations under s.508.1, pre‑enquête hearings, and the requirement that any judicial authorization must be completed, signed, and dated by the issuing justice.

The Applicant further documents his extensive efforts to obtain adjudicative records from the Ontario Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, including requests directed to the Chief Justice, Associate Chief Justice, and Regional Senior Justice. He emphasizes that court records are not subject to FIPPA and must be requested from the “originating courthouse,” which remains unidentified despite inquiries to multiple court locations. The declaration argues that without knowing the originating courthouse, the Applicant cannot obtain the transcript, the underlying application materials, or the judicial authorization that would confirm whether any lawful process was issued.

Declaration #12 also addresses the handling of the Applicant’s property between the unlawful lockouts of September 20, 2024, and the arrest on October 2, 2024. The Applicant raises concerns that his property may have been unlawfully seized or searched by TPS, noting inconsistencies in the property bag and the unexplained transfer of items between divisions.

The declaration concludes by asserting that the TPS Respondents’ conduct—including failure to produce the warrant, reliance on an invalid document, potential unlawful seizure of property, and procedural irregularities—constitutes adverse treatment under the Human Rights Code and a clear breach of Section 8 of the Charter. The Applicant submits this declaration as part of the HRTO record to support findings of discrimination, unlawful search and seizure, and systemic failures in police accountability.

This filing forms a critical component of the McLean v. TPS, Goldview et al. litigation archive, documenting Charter violations, evidentiary gaps, and the Applicant’s ongoing efforts to obtain the records necessary to advance his human rights claims.

Declaration #13, sworn June 17, 2025, formally incorporates the Applicant’s email correspondence with Goldview Property Management and Ms. Latoya Ferguson into the evidentiary record of McLean v. TPS, Goldview, Landlord (HRTO File 2024‑58615‑I). These communications document key events in July 2024 and September 2024, including unauthorized entries into the rental unit, unlawful lockouts, deactivation of the Applicant’s FOB, and Goldview’s threat to contact police if the Applicant was seen on the property.

The declaration highlights how these emails contradict the Form 2 Information sworn by Court Officer Frugoni‑Rojas, particularly the false allegation that the Applicant communicated with Ms. Nicole Artopoulos on September 22, 2024. The Applicant confirms that no such communication occurred and that his only correspondence on that date was with Goldview. This discrepancy supports the Applicant’s position that the Form 2 may be backdated, manipulated, or a false document, and that the criminal process initiated against him was tainted by inaccuracies and procedural irregularities.

Declaration #13 also addresses Goldview’s September 23, 2024 letter—sent on false premises—and asserts that the Applicant’s disabilities were a factor in the adverse treatment he received in both services and accommodation. The declaration further alleges that the Landlord misled the HRTO by claiming the Applicant had filed a civil court proceeding seeking Human Rights Code remedies, which he confirms he did not do.

The declaration concludes by stating that if the Frugoni‑Rojas Form 2 is indeed a false document, then the TPS has failed to comply with Tribunal orders requiring production of accurate records. The Applicant requests immediate rectification through production of the true, complete, and original document that commenced the criminal proceeding.

This filing strengthens the HRTO record by adding contemporaneous evidence of discriminatory treatment, false allegations, and coordinated misconduct involving the Landlord, Goldview, and TPS.