Apotex - contamination     www.apotexholocaust.com            www.pharmaholocaust.com
I live like a walking death in twilight zone / some where in between death and a life being deprived of all Human Rights and Constitutional / Law 
protection by habitual offenders. I was assessed by three (3) independent psychiatrists to eliminate offender's speculations about my insanity 
prompting "delusions" etc. All psychiatrists stated clearly, that I am sane /I do NOT have/had any mental illness. No family history of any.
ANY COURT OF LAW WOULD MAKE DEFENDANT LOSE THEIR DEFENSE IF THEY WOULD 
BEHAVE IN SUCH CRIMINAL /FRAUDULENT MANNER FOR PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME AS 
APOTEX /COUNSEL DO .

To Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal
Toronto, Ontario,
Sept 21/2011
Re: WSIAT#: WSiB #: 


Dear Sir, 


I apology for grammar of this entry, but I am struggling to focus and to see 
as well as with my other medical problems.
I AM SO RESTRICTED BY MY NEUROLOGICAL AND OTHER VERY SERIOUS MEDICAL 
PROBLEMS THAT I AM FORCED TO PASTE SOME OF MY PREVIOUS COMMUNICATIONS IN 
ORDER TO LIST MY MEDICAL CONDITIONS WHICH I WANT TO have INDIVIDUALLY AND 
PARTICULARLY INDICATED ON MY DOCUMENTS GENERATED BY WSIAT TO / FOR APPEAL.
I APOLOGIZE FOR SOME REPEATED INFO , BUT ALL PARAGRAPHS DO CONTAIN SOME NEW 
DATA SO I QUOTED THEM IN WHOLE SO THEY DO MAKE MORE LOGICAL SENSE.
PARAGRAPHS DO REPRESENT SOME PREVIOUS INDEPENDENT LETTERS / COMMUNICATIONS 
WITH WSIAT.
BELOW I LIST MY INDIVIDUAL AND PARTICULAR DIAGNOSED MEDICAL CONDITIONS AND 
MUCH MORE:
- PERMANENT CHEMICALLY INDUCED DAMAGE TO LUNGS (FLUID IN LUNGS, STOPPING 
RESPIRATION, STAGGERING POTENTIAL FOR CHEMICALLY / ASBESTOS INDUCED 
MESOTHELIOMA ) etc.
- PERMANENT CHEMICALLY INDUCED BY TOXIC EXPOSURES VITILIGO
- PERMANENT CHEMICALLY INDUCED HYPERTENSION / HEARTH DAMAGE
- PERMANENT CHEMICALLY INDUCED DAMAGE TO PERIPHERAL /CNS SYSTEMS
- PERMANENT CHEMICALLY INDUCED PARKINSONISM
- PERMANENT CHEMICALLY INDUCED NEUROLOGICAL BLINDNESS /GLAUCOMA
- PERMANENT CHEMICALLY INDUCED MULTI LYMPHOMA /TUMORS
- PERMANENT CHEMICALLY INDUCED MULTI BASEL CELL CARCINOMAS
- PERMANENT CHEMICALLY INDUCED MULTI ALLERGIES
- and many more PERMANENT CHEMICALLY INDUCED aggravating medical conditions 
indicated in my communication Letters to WSIAT.
Dear Sir, I am deeply disturbed by fact, that you do not want to include / 
indicate all my medical conditions / other relevant issues on generated by 
you Forms as well as fact, that you are tolerating Apotex / Counsel's 
criminal activities on Tribunal's forum by accepting criminally fraudulent 
arguments , fabricated by Apotex /Counsel evidence / witnesses and much 
more.
ANY COURT OF LAW WOULD MAKE DEFENDANT LOSE THEIR DEFENSE IF THEY WOULD 
BEHAVE IN SUCH CRIMINAL /FRAUDULENT MANNER FOR PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME AS 
APOTEX /COUNSEL DO .
Mr. Carl Peterson (Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP):
Despite his OATH TO HER MAJESTY "JUSTICE" TO SERVE LOYALLY, JUSTIFIABLY
THOSE IN NEED /JUSTICE SYSTEM, unfortunately he selected to utilize his
knowledge / expertise in criminal, amoral, unprincipled manner. He explored
/utilized gross deficiencies of the Regulatory System and acted against very
sick /disadvantaged / UNREPRESENTED ex-employee of criminal Corporation
contributing great deal to my suffer and to my misery for many, many years.
APOTEX - These astronomical profits (1,000% mark-up over production cost is 
the norm)
became supported by taxpayer's money, which pays for most of the actual drug
development costs, ever since former Prime Minister Mulroney's 1993 Bill
C-91.
... this is a chemical holocaust against General Public!! This like 
fighting against tree headed Goliath!
What needs to happen before this reign of medical terror is brought to an 
end?
ORGANIZED CRIME LEGISLATION
Apotex /Counsel established organized crime network in Ontario! Apotex's 
Counsel, Mr.. Carl Peterson -Filion Wakely Thorup Angelletti claims 
/provides criminally fraudulent information /witnesses to WSIAT ( as he did 
before for many years to all other Government Agencies!). Despite all my 
allegations about his activities supported by evidence Mr.. Carl 
Peterson -Filion Wakely Thorup Angelletti and his fraudulent witnesses were 
accepted by WSIAT. What I need to face nex?
The provinces are strengthening own ongoing commitments to keep communities 
safe with many pieces of legislation designed to create a hostile 
environment for organized crime.
Under The Seizure of Criminal Property Act, property that is the proceeds of 
unlawful activity or that is being actively used for an unlawful activity 
could be forfeited and sold.
Under The Criminal Enterprise Suppression Act, the owner or manager of a 
business who is a member of a criminal organization could see a court order 
prohibiting the business from storing or distributing drugs / actives / 
chemicals OR OTHER INVENTORY etc.
"Keeping communities safe is a top priority of this government," Justice 
Minister said. "Criminal organizations are motivated by profit. By removing 
profit and the tools used to make that profit from the hands of criminals, 
we will assist our police services to make a Provinces an undesirable 
location for organized crime activity."
"Since 2003 this government has introduced a series of bills to help our 
police and justice officials to address organized crime " . "In 2003, we 
introduced legislation to record pawned property. In November 2004, we 
implemented legislation to target residential and commercial buildings and 
land used for illegal activities." etc., etc., etc.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says tough new anti-crime legislation which 
cracks down on crime and extends prison sentences will prevent crime.
"We got elected because we know the people of Canada want us to take a 
tougher stand on crime, want us to deal toughly with those who perpetrate 
these crimes," Harper said.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced the new legislation at a press 
conference in Ottawa.
"Just a few minutes ago, I tabled legislation in the House of Commons to 
amend the Criminal Code in the areas of organized crime," Nicholson said.
Nicholson said the new measures were part of the Conservative government's 
overall anti-crime strategy.
"We are moving forward on our justice agenda to address the impact of 
organized crime on Canadian families and society," he said.
Dear Sir, I am forced to ask you to not generate any letters to my self nor 
to make any arrangements with Apotex's Counsel for time being, until you 
will secure for me (AS GUARANTEED BY LAW - BILL107, / Attorney's General 
Office AND OTHER LEGISLATIONS) a letter from Attorney General consenting to 
pay fees for my LEGAL REPRESENTATION - as guaranteed in Bill 107 .
HOW I SUPPOSE TO LITIGATE MY CASE /CHALLENGE CRIMINAL COUNSEL IN CROSS 
EXAMINATION WITH MY NEUROLOGICAL PROBLEMS (MEMORY ELAPSES, LOSE OF TRAIN OF 
THINKING, MENTAL TURMOIL, SPEECH MECHANISM IMPAIRMENT, VISION PROBLEMS / 
BLINDNESS etc?
ALSO I AM ASKING YOU TO NOTIFY POLICE ABOUT CRIMES / FRAUD COMMITTED BY 
APOTEX / COUNSEL AS INDICATED /SUBSTANTIATED IN MY COMMUNICATIONS / MY 
EVIDENCE .
Please notify Ministry of Environment about environmental contamination / 
disasters / emergencies. I did provide necessary information in regard to 
this issue.
Environmental Enforcement Act
As reported , the Environmental Enforcement Act received Royal Assent on 
June 18, 2009. The Act amends environmental legislation administered by 
Environment Canada including: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 
1999; the Canada Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, 
theWild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and 
Interprovincial Trade Act, theAntarctic Environmental Protection Act, the 
International River Improvements Act, the Canada National Parks Act, the 
Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Saguenay-St. Lawrence 
Marine Park Act.
The statute sets minimum fines for serious environmental offences of between 
$5,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations. The act also raises 
maximum fines to as high as $6 million per day. Enforcement officers are 
given new investigative powers and courts are given sentencing guidance so 
that environmental damages, prior convictions and other relevant factors are 
taken into account and treated as aggravating factors. Administrative 
penalties may be imposed to address less serious environmental offences.
All individuals acting in collaboration with Apotex / Counsel may be CHARGED 
as conspirators / collaborators / accomplices to crimes , fraud, Domestic / 
Global terrorism and much more.
I want to be represented by:
- Employment Lawyer
- Personal Injury Lawyer
- Human Rights Lawyer
- and Constitutional Lawyer
All those Legal Representatives must be pre -approved by me- a victim and 
whole process of representation must be under my exclusive control / 
authority.
WE ARE APPEALING NOT ONLY PRE-DETERMINED BY WSiB MY MEDICAL CONDITIONS, BUT 
ALL OF MY MEDICAL CONDITIONS RESULTING FROM MY DIRECT AND MASSIVE 
UNPROTECTED TOXIC EXPOSURES DUE TO CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE / CRIMINAL ACTS BY 
APOTEX / COUNSEL AS WELL AS OTHER ISSUES OF HUMAN RIGHTS , CONSTITUTIONAL 
ISSUES , CRIMINAL (DENIAL OF ALL CONSTITUTIONAL / LAW PROTECTION , 
DEPRIVATION OF ALL MEDICAL AND OTHER HELP , TORTURE , SUBJECTION TO 
APARTHEID / FASCIST METHODOLOGIES etc).
I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE ANY SHORT CUTS AND VOGUE GENERALIZATIONS / 
TERMINOLOGIES IN FORM OF "OTHER" MEDICAL CONDITIONS etc.
That is what was imposed on me previously by ALL other Government 
Agenciesand CONTROLLED BY Apotex / Counsel leading me nowhere IN SUFFER for 
7 + years !
In case if Apotex / Counsel will manage to criminally influence my Case and 
my Case will be dealt with in not satisfactory TO ME / A VICTIM manner, 
then I WANT TO HAVE THE OPTION TO GO TO SUPREME COURT / FOR JURY REVIEW.
ALL ISSUES OCCURRED DURING PERIOD OF MY EMPLOYMENT AND ALL DURING PERIOD 
AFTER THAT UNTIL THE PRESENT DO CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS CODE.
All acts / facts do constitute a violation of the Human Rights Code.
The matter is the one that falls under federal jurisdiction under the 
Constitution Act, 1867?
Dear Sir,
NO TIME LIMITATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CASES
WHY FOR MORE THEN 7 YEARS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES DENIED ME LEGAL REPRESENTATION 
WHICH IS GUARANTIED BY LAW!
Tribunal OF HUMAN RIGHTS (Ms. Rowan, Ms. Granier-Registrar) as well as all 
other Government Agencies ignored all of the McGuinty Government's 10 key 
commitments on what Bill 107 will deliver to the public, including 
discrimination victims. See that full list of commitments.
In summary, the Government has made these 10 commitments:
1. Commitment of free legal representation for all human rights 
complainants.
2. Commitment that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre will investigate 
the cases of people they represent.
3. Commitment of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to meet with everyone 
who wants legal representation.
4. Commitment to provide legal services across Ontario.
5. Commitment of Human Rights Legal Support Centre to pay for expert 
witnesses for their clients.
6. Commitment to having human rights cases decided within one year of filing 
a complaint under Bill 107.
7. Commitment that legal support to be provided to all regardless of income.
8. Commitment to establish Anti-Racism Secretariat and Disability Rights 
Secretariat at the Human Rights Commission.
9. Commitment that Human Rights Commission will become stronger force for 
human rights.
10. Commitment that Bill 107 responds to the Cornish and La Forest reports.
ALSO: Message from the Attorney General
The Honorable Chris Bentley
Attorney General of Ontario
VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS
Victims' Bill of Rights, 1995
S.O. 1995, CHAPTER 6
Amended by: 1999, c, 6, s. 65; 2000, c. 32; 2005, c. 5, s. 72.
Preamble
The people of Ontario believe that victims of crime, who have suffered harm 
and whose rights and security have been violated by crime, should be treated 
with compassion and fairness. The people of Ontario further believe that the 
justice system should operate in a manner that does not increase the 
suffering of victims of crime and that does not discourage victims of crime 
from participating in the justice process.
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the 
Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts Definitions, 
Principles, Limitations, Regulations, Interpretations etc.
Damages
(1) A person convicted of a prescribed crime is liable in damages to every 
victim
of the crime for emotional distress, and bodily harm resulting from the 
distress, arising from the commission of the crime. 1995, c. 6, s. 3 (1).
(2) The victims shall be presumed to have suffered emotional distress.
Regulations
(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing 
crimes for the purposes of subsection (1). 1995, c. 6, s. 3 (3).
Interpretation
(4) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to limit remedies otherwise 
available under existing law or to preclude the development of remedies 
under the law. 1995, c.
6, s. 3 (4).
Application of section
4. (1) This section applies to a civil proceeding in which the victim of a 
crime seeks redress from a person convicted of the crime for harm suffered 
as a result of the commission of the crime. 1995, c. 6, s. 4 (1).
Ministry of the Attorney General
GETTING HELP QUICKLY
I am a victim of crime. WHY I DID NOT get help?
In Ontario, the police are required to provide assistance to victims of 
crime. Police across the province may provide this assistance either 
directly through their police service or by connecting victims of crime with 
a community organization. In some communities this service is called VCARS 
(which stands for Victim Crisis Assistance and Referral Services); in others 
it may be called "Victim Services".
All victim services programs, whether provided through the police or 
community
organizations, offer a broad range of services, including: immediate crisis 
intervention support 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (on-site or by 
telephone); practical assistance (for example, transportation, telephone 
calls, etc); and information and referrals to other community services for 
longer term support."
WHY IN MY CASE I was and am tortured by Apotex, Workplace Safety & Insurance 
Board, Labour Relations Board (Ministry of Labour), Ontario Ombudsman, Fair 
Practices Commission, Worker Adviser, Human Rights Commission, Ontario Human 
Rights Tribunal, (GOVERNMENT Agencies) and some more Agencies AND I WAS /AM 
DENIED ALL THOSE SERVICES?.
Canadian Government institutions mandated to assist General Public in time 
of misfortune, suffer and despair selected to engage in criminal activities 
and assist criminal Corporation which is stone waling an Ontarian / victim 
with life threatening medical conditions.
Those Institutions deprived me from Constitutional and Law protection.
"Who does Not Know the Truth, is simply a Fool.
Yet who Knows the Truth and Calls it a Lie, is a Criminal."....................................................:)
Yes, let call things the way they are! The right to know is guarantied in 
Canada's Health and Safety Act , Criminal Code etc. and all employers and 
now individuals are obligated by Law to be informed and inform.
Now : Occupational Health and Safety Act (R.S.O. 1990.Capter 0.1(5) which 
state "on an inquiry by the Board into a complaint filled under subsection 
(2), the burden of proof that an employer or person acting on behalf of an 
employer did not act contrary to subsection (1) lies upon the employer or 
the person acting on behalf of the employer.R.S.O. 
1990,c.0.1,s.50(5),1998,c.8,s.56(2).
CRIMINAL CODE
"Savings and Restructuring Act introduced Amendments to the Employment 
Standards Act (ESA) clarifying or strengthening the rights of WORKERS.
The Act stipulated to discontinue use of the proxy comparison method in 
assesing individual Cases.
Important additional changes were made by Workers' Compensation Reform Act 
to the Workers' Compensation system. In particular, new priorities were set: 
the focus is first on prevention of workplace injury and illness as well on 
compensation and other benefits.
Changes in the compensation system included a tightening of provisions for 
mental stress and chronic pain.
Bill C-45 questions get answered :
By way of reminder, Bill C-45 amended the Criminal Code to create new duties 
and possible criminal liability for individuals and organizations, which 
include corporations. Because of the complexity of these Criminal Code 
requirements, and the amount of time that has been passed since they became 
law in March 2004, answers to key questions about Bill C-45 amendments are 
set out below, as follows. By way of reminder, Bill C-45 amended the 
Criminal Code to create new duties and possible criminal liability for 
individuals and organizations, which include corporations. Because of the 
complexity of these Criminal Code requirements, and the amount of time that 
has been passed since they became law in March 2004, answers to key 
questions about Bill C-45 amendments are set out below, as follows:
Is the new Criminal Code duty different from OH&S duties to take all 
reasonable precautions or all reasonable care? How?
The new duty found in section 217.1 of the Criminal Code requires that 
"everyone who undertakes, or has the authority to direct how another person 
does work or performs a task, is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps 
to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from 
that work or task". "Everyone" includes individuals, organizations as 
broadly defined, and corporations.
This duty parallels traditional OH&S standards, but also expands on the 
matters contained in most OH&S statutes. The duty applies to any individual 
with authority to direct another person in the performance of work, while 
OH&S legislation generally imposes duties on employers, supervisors, 
constructors, owners, directors and officers. The Criminal Code may apply 
more widely to anyone who "undertakes" to direct work, including lead hands 
and working forepersons.
The Criminal Code duty also requires that reasonable steps be taken to 
prevent bodily harm to any person, which would include the public or 
volunteers who may enter the workplace or be affected by workplace 
activities.
Does violation of the Criminal Code duty mean we are guilty of criminal 
negligence?
Breach of the Criminal Code duty does not necessarily mean that an 
organization or individual is guilty of criminal negligence. In order for a 
breach of the duty of care to amount to criminal negligence, the Crown must 
prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that the breach of the duty 
occurred in a "wanton or reckless" manner.
IN YOUR CASE YOU DO HAVE HARD EVIDENCE , THAT THE SYTUATION WAS KNOWN TO 
EMPLOYER SO HE IS IN BREACH OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AS WELL AS OTHER 
REGULATIONS / LEGISLATIVE!
ALL PEOPLE/ AGENCIES OBSTRUCTING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND/OR CORRECTION 
OF PROBLEMS ARE AS WELL CRIMINALLY LIABLE!
Section 219 of the Criminal Code states that, "Everyone is criminally 
negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that 
it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or 
safety of other persons." The provisions of Section 219 broadly state that 
for the purposes of the criminal negligence section, Section 219 of the 
Criminal Code, "duty" means a duty imposed by law.
Criminal cases have found that for criminal negligence to occur, a breach of 
a duty must represent a "marked" and significant departure from the standard 
of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances. There must be more than 
mere failure to meet an OH&S or Criminal Code standard through inadvertence. 
There must be evidence of behavioral which shows complete disregard for, or 
indifference to the duty. As one court put it, there must be a finding of a 
"devil-may-care" attitude that shows a criminal standard has been met.
Wasn't Bill C-45 all about creating criminal liability for directors and 
officers?
Not exactly. While the Westray inquiry which concluded in 1997 recommended 
that Canada "amend or introduce legislation to ensure that corporate 
executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety 
and the wrongful and negligent acts of their corporations," ultimately Bill 
C-45 created a mechanism which allowed corporations to be more readily 
convicted of criminal negligence. The Criminal Code continues to allow 
individual charges of criminal negligence, which could include charges 
against a supervisor, or director or officer, for breach of a duty in a 
wanton or reckless manner, but that was not the primary focus of the Bill 
C-45 amendments when they were passed and came into force in 2004.
Does Bill C-45 create both corporate and individual criminal liability?
Yes, it does both. The provisions create new criminal duties and liabilities 
for both individuals and organizations (which are defined to include 
corporations). Both individuals and organizations can now be convicted of 
criminal negligence for failure to perform the duty, when it occurs in a 
manner that shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of 
others.
What is necessary for an organization (including a corporation) to be 
convicted under the Criminal Code of criminal negligence?
The process for convicting an organization of criminal negligence in the 
workplace safety context involves two steps. First, the Crown must prove 
beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of a single representative 
(employee, partner, contractor, agent of the organization) breached the 
Criminal Code duty in a wanton or reckless way. This could involve reckless 
ignoring of safety rules or physical protective devices where the potential 
result is serious harm or death.
Second, after the breach of duty is established, the Crown must then show 
that a senior officer with operational or executive authority, or as 
drafters put it, someone with "real clout" who is responsible for the part 
of the organization involved in the breach, either failed to act or 
insulated themselves from obtaining the knowledge to act. The Crown has to 
prove a marked departure from what would reasonably be expected of a senior 
officer with obligations to protect workers and the public.
What are the potential liabilities under the Criminal Code provisions as 
amended by Bill C-45?
For individuals, the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing death 
is life imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for criminal negligence 
causing bodily harm is ten years' imprisonment. However, individuals are 
subject to a range of Criminal Code sentencing options from absolute 
discharge, to probation, to life in prison, depending on the specific 
circumstances of the contravention.
Organizations, including corporations, are subject to different penalties 
depending on how the Crown proceeds. Where the Crown proceeds by summary 
conviction (the least serious manner of proceeding), the maximum fine is 
$100,000 for an organization.
Where the Crown proceeds by indictment (the most serious manner of 
proceeding), there is no limit on the amount of the fine for the corporation 
or organization.
Organizations may also be placed on probation and the terms of a 
probationary order can include such matters as: requiring the organization 
to make restitution, financial or otherwise, relating to the offence; 
requiring the organization to report to the court or the public on 
implementation of remedial steps; requiring the appointment of a senior 
officer to be responsible for implementing remedial procedures; requiring 
the organization to disclose its conviction to the public.
Probation orders including these types of terms are available in addition to 
monetary penalties."
Regards,
Apotex's/ WSiB's/ Government's of Ontario victim