Why is the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario [or HRTO] - Judge Richard Hennessey ignoring these criminal allegations

against Ryerson University ?

ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ::
(1) (2) (3) (4) Political Maneovering Corruption Perjury Very recently bribery
URL :: http://www.scribd.com/doc/95241778/Ryerson-UniversityOffered-Me-a-Bribe-to-Drop-a-Lawsuit-Sid-Senadheera

The following pages shows a request that was made for a Judicial Review in order to investigate these crimes.
The statements of the following individuals are considered here :: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Krishnan Venkatakrishnan (Ryerson University) Cathy Faye (Ryerson University) Hicks Morley Human Resources Lawyer - Elizabeth Kosmidis HRTO Judge - Judith Allen Dean Maurice Yeates (Ryerson University)
1

Request for a Judicial Review From the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) Case # : 2009-04265-I
17th May 2012 Dear Hon. Madam /Sir ; This is a request for a judicial review. It includes details of how perjury and political manoeuvring was used at a previous HRTO hearing. The hearing was held in August 2011. It was to seek justice for the discrimination and illegitimate firing of Sid Senadheera from Ryerson University due to bipolar illness. This application for judicial review is prepared and filed by Sid Senadheera. He will represent himself in legal matters since he cannot afford a Lawyer. The applicant has no other income other than ODSP (disability). Sid Senadheera's Supervisor Professor Krishnan Venkatakrishnan denied the request by the Ryerson University Physician for reasonable accommodation for bipolar illness, violating the Canadian Disability Act. Instead of accommodation he decided to fire him because of the fear and stigma of the bipolar illness. His decisions were approved by the Ryerson University Dean Maurice Yeates. Perjury was used to cover up obvious violations in the Canadian disability act. Firing took place under discrimination and highly arbitrary conditions in the Fall of 2009. A false arrest and interrogation by the Toronto police was also made in 2009 under fragmented arguments by the Respondents. A judicial review is required to inquire why there was fixing of the outcome during the HRTO hearing by the Arbitrator. Before going to the hearing several Lawyers told me, I wont get anything out of it unless I had strong political ties. The Respondents Lawyer, Elizabeth Kosmidis of Hicks Morley LLP, took a stand to support corruption and perjury of the respondents while under oath. Meanwhile the HRTO Adjudicator Judith Allen did not object to this situation or correcting it while she knew some of the facts from witnesses had internal contradictions (please read the details in the evidence). When I inquired about this situation from the HRTO Registrar Jus. Richard Hennessey he requested that I send the attached information to the Superior Court of Justice for a judicial review. His email response is attached with this application. All evidence attached to this application were previously presented before to the HRTO court. Thank you. Yours Sincerely,

Sid Senadheera

HRTO Case 2009-04265-I. Respondent : Krishnan Venkatakrishnan

TITLE : Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Ryerson University VIOLATION(S) : False testimony under oath (Perjury) at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). False accusation and testimony to the Toronto Police (separate criminal offence) and Ryerson University Security. Deliberately made false statements to support the firing of Sid Senadheera to the Ryerson University Attorney, Elizabeth Kosmidis and Judge Judith Allen. Firing was carried out while accommodation has been requested by the University Physician APPENDIX-B Violating the Canadian Disability Act. EVIDENCE :: Has clear inconsistency in the testimony at trial, email correspondence, and police disclosure statements.

Factual information in support of perjury :

Underlined parts inside the box (below) have been written by Lawyer Elizabeth Kosmidis with the information she obtained from Krishnan Venkatakrishnan.
There was no comment on aggressive behavior before Sid Senadheera asked this former graduate student (in the email below) Manjit Dhami, if she would not mind being a witness to show that Professor Venkatakrishnan is making up these facts. Professor Venkatakrishnan is very immature in some sense. He has the vindictive nature of a teenager with no rationale or logic behind his actions. Who else would organize false fire drills and create imaginary fear in his colleagues and his students to make them fear Sid Senadheera in order to pose Sid as a threat to the Ryerson community. Staff, Faculty and students at Ryerson believed for while that there is someone similar to the Virginia Tech shooter coming to kill them all. Krishnan Venkatakrishnan similarly distorted the truth to the Police. He wanted Sid Senadheera arrested and said he is physically aggressive and a physical threat to him and the students at Ryerson. The Police Detective was expecting to see a monster, until he talked with Sid for five minutes and understood he is no different than anybody else. Sid's bipolar illness helped the arrest since violence is stigmatized by the media for those afflicted with bipolar illness. Krishnan Venkatakrishnan swore that he will tell the truth and nothing but the truth to the court and he lied. This was Professor Krishnan Venkatakrishnans intentional fabrication of truth I saw Sid Senadheera in a physical altercation (or a fight) when I arrived at the lab. I saw Sid fighting with a second person. Please see the parts that are magnified in the email below. If this grad student disagreed (that Sid did not get up from his seat or get into a physical fight) she would have immediately responded when this evidence was serious enough to be presented to a court trial. Why is this man Krishnan Venkatakrishnan so vehemently trying to frame Sid Senadheera as an aggressive monster with behavioral problems? The root of this problem is greed over grant money. All these distractions are to get rid of Sid Senadheera and his rather complicated research in order to hire a normal researcher that thinks at the superficial level of Professor Krishnan Venkatakrishnan and his wife Bo Tan.

The original email (above)

HRTO Case 2009-04265-I witness : Cathy Faye

TITLE : Director of Academic Affairs at Ryerson University CRIMINAL VIOLATION (S) : False testimony under oath (Perjury) at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). Deliberately made false statements to support the firing of Sid Senadheera to the Ryerson University Attorney, Elizabeth Kosmidis and Judge Judith Allen. Fired while accommodation has been requested by the University Physician Violating the Canadian Disability Act. EVIDENCE :: Has clear inconsistency in the testimony at trial, email correspondence and police statements. DOCUMENT BELOW - Written by Lawyer Elizabeth Kosmidis : Please read the disagreements first.

Disagreement in Testimony 1 [ Supporting evidence for perjury ]

Cathy Faye says she had no idea that Sid Senadheera had bipolar disorder before the firing. He was officially fired in November 2009. This is to save herself and the rest of the Ryersons collaborators from being accused for firing Sid Senadheera without offering the requested accommodation by the Physician. Again if I may reword her statement as Cathy Faye says along with the rest of the Ryersons staff, and their Lawyer Elizabeth Kosmidis, that they had no clue that Sid Senadheera had bipolar illness while he was fired in November when the official letter was issued.

On the morning of 27th Oct 2009 at 10.00 am Sid Senadheera received the following email. [full email will be provided to court]

email correspondence circulated between Sid Senadheera, K. Venkatakrishnan and Maurice Yeates (below) and Cathy Faye. The police officers that arrested Sid Senadheera for questioning in the evening on the same day under a false testimony given by Maurice Yeates and K. Venkatakrishnan to be dealt separately, mentioned to him that he has been fired from Ryerson. That was on October 27th. The above email also mentions I told Ms. Cathy Faye to pass you the message that I am sick. She knew exactly what the sickness was. The Police officers were told about Sid Senadheera's sickness at Ryerson. The police officers that arrested Sid also knew he had bipolar illness and asked him if he needs to see a Doctor (on 27th Oct 2009). They found out this information from Maurice Yeates and K. Venkatakrishnan according to the Crown's disclosure. Ms. Cathy Faye knew Sid Senadheera had bipolar illness before the firing, and so did Maurice Yeates, K. Venkatakrishnan and Bo Tan. This fabricated evidence was put forth to the Court by Lawyer Elizabeth Kosmidis. Ms. Cathy Faye gave an internally inconsistent statement while knowingly lying under oath. Therefore she is an alleged criminal for perjury. Her arguments such as not knowing about bipolar illness before the firing or having not written Waterloo Astrophysics program in the application to Ryerson were merely to divert the court's attention from the serious violations.

Disagreement in Testimony 2 [ Supporting evidence for perjury ]

There was a meeting of some importance on 15th Oct at the Ryerson University. The meeting was all about Sid Senadheera and his safety towards faculty and students. Why safety? If he had a disability with a broken arm, would there be a meeting? If he had a disability with hearing would the university call for a safety meeting? No! The meeting was held because Sid's disability was bipolar illness. Why would there be representatives from Security Services and Access Center? Is the person from Access Center not aware that the subject of discussion is having a disability, and if so what is that disability?

When asked about this contradiction at the trial, both Imrie Juuralink and Cathy Faye fabricated the truth. This was their answer Bipolar illness was not discussed in this particular meeting, it was discussed in another meeting. According to her previous testimony unless that other meeting was in December after the firing letter has been mailed she has an internal contradiction in the statement made under oath. She contradicts already with the evidence given about the other meeting by the police evidence and the disclosure again as well. Another big controversy here is that, Cathy Faye and Imrie Juuralink implies they did not know about Sid Senadheera's Bipolar illness even while there were fire drills going on to evacuate buildings in case Sid showed up at Ryerson (written in the Toronto police disclosure). This was happening in October of 2009. It is impossible how this school has kept Cathy Faye in the dark, who is a key figure that decided Sid's fate at Ryerson, while fourteen story buildings were evacuated as emergency precautions by the University police.

HRTO Case 2009-04265-I Arbitrator : Judith Allen

TITLE : Adjudicator (Judge) at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario [HRTO] VIOLATION : Knowingly accepting a false testimony under oath (Perjury) at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). Assisting the prevalence of perjury in her courtroom. Deliberately sided with the respondents. Factual Evidence :: When questioned by Sid Senadheera, why did she accept a completely fabricated piece of evidence by Krishnan Venkatakrishnan, this was her reply... By Judith Allen - the respondents spent a lot of money and energy putting their defence together. So I cannot do anything now. I have very strict rules to follow. During the mediation there could have been a possibility of some remedial work .... In other words, her statement above says the following.... Since the respondents spent a lot of money on this lawsuit, the outcome of this trial will be fixed such that the respondents must win no matter what the case is about. Justice is not important here.

10

APPENDIX A

11

APPENDIX B

12