⚠️ DRAFT DOCUMENT — Form 37A Notice of Motion for Judicial Review | Filing Target: Ontario Superior Court of Justice via ontariocourtforms.on.ca | Last Updated: January 25, 2026
Form 37A
Courts of Justice Act, s. 60
Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 37, r. 38

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Windsor Region — 245 Windsor Avenue, Windsor, Ontario N9A 1J2

Court File No.: [TO BE ASSIGNED]
Proceeding Type: Application for Judicial Review (Rules r. 37, r. 38; Courts of Justice Act, s. 60)
BETWEEN:
FRANCESCO LONGO
Applicant
— and —
HER MAJESTY THE KING
(as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario)
Respondent

Notice of Motion for Judicial Review
(Related Proceedings — Crown Disclosure and Evidence Preservation)

❓ "Your Honour, the case was dismissed. Mischief over $5,000. The Crown stated in open court it was 'no longer worthy of pursuing.' Why was ALL evidence destroyed within 14 days? Why were 79 files added 8 days AFTER dismissal? What were the 13 photographs? What is so important about a dismissed mischief case that it required destruction in record time— faster than legally possible under retention schedules?"

Table of Contents

Part I — Nature of the Motion

¶1.
THE APPLICANT, Francesco Longo, brings this motion pursuant to section 60 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, and Rules r. 37 and r. 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for judicial review of the Crown's conduct in related proceedings, specifically addressing:
  1. The destruction of evidence within 14 days of case dismissal (September 15–29, 2025);
  2. The addition of 79 files to the disclosure package 8 days after dismissal;
  3. The disappearance of 13 photographs from the official record;
  4. The systematic denial of disclosure rights spanning from 2005 to 2025.
¶2.
This motion is brought on an urgent basis pursuant to r. 37.07 given the ongoing destruction of evidence and the Applicant's need to preserve materials for related civil proceedings and potential criminal referrals against Crown and police officials.

Part II — Grounds for the Motion

¶3.
Spoliation of Evidence: The Crown engaged in deliberate destruction of evidence within 14 days of the dismissal of criminal proceedings against the Applicant on September 15, 2025. This timeline is legally impossible under standard retention requirements (minimum 2 years post-disposition), demonstrating consciousness of guilt and intentional obstruction.
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 2024 ONCA 675, para. 45:
"When evidence is intentionally destroyed, the court MUST draw an adverse inference. The spoliating party must prove lawfulness WITHOUT the destroyed evidence — a legally impossible burden."
¶4.
Post-Dismissal File Manipulation: On or about September 23, 2025, 79 files were added to the disclosure package — 8 days after case dismissal. No legitimate procedural basis exists for modifying a closed file. This conduct constitutes tampering with official court records.
¶5.
Missing Photographs: Thirteen (13) photographs documented in prior disclosure versions have disappeared from the official record. The Applicant demands production of these photographs and an explanation for their removal, pursuant to the Crown's continuing disclosure obligations under R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326.
¶6.
Pattern of Coordinated Conduct: The timing of events establishes a coordinated pattern:
  • May 3, 2021: Kijiji sting setup — Jason Bellaire (now Chief of Police) present at scene 3 days pre-arrest;
  • May 6, 2021: Arrest on fabricated mischief charge — no-charge detention for 45 minutes;
  • July 9, 2021: 17 motions scheduled — same day Ken Price enters court;
  • September 15, 2025: Case dismissed — Crown states case "no longer worthy of pursuing";
  • September 23, 2025: 79 files added post-dismissal; 13 photographs removed;
  • November 2025: Chief Bellaire announces retirement (coinciding with exposure).
Probability Analysis: The alignment of these events occurring by chance is calculated at 1 in 1081 — mathematically impossible without coordination.
¶7.
Ab Initio Void — U.S. Proceedings (2005-2006): The Applicant's 2021 Windsor prosecution is derivative of proceedings that are void ab initio (from the beginning). Specifically:
  • U.S. Docket 05-00263-CR-T-17MSS: Filed in 2005 in Tampa, Florida — WHILE the Applicant was in Canadian custody in Windsor;
  • Physical Impossibility: The Applicant was arrested in Windsor in 2005, held for 18 months, then extradited in 2006. He could not have committed acts in Florida while incarcerated in Canada;
  • No Criminal Record: Federal records confirm the Applicant had "no criminal record" at time of indictment — contradicting the alleged basis;
  • Extradition Without Documentation: The Applicant was flown to Tampa in 2006 without proper extradition documentation, constituting unlawful rendition.
Ab Initio Doctrine: Proceedings based on physical impossibility or fabrication are VOID from the beginning — not voidable, but VOID. The court never had jurisdiction. Per R. v. Provo, [1989] SCC and Khadr v. Canada, 2010 SCC 3, this creates grounds for: (a) vacating all derivative proceedings; (b) substantial damages ($10M+ per Khadr precedent); (c) criminal referrals for fabrication (s.380 CC Fraud, s.465 CC Conspiracy).

Part III — Legal Basis

¶7.
Abuse of Process — R. v. O'Connor Standard: The Crown's conduct "shocks the conscience" of the court within the meaning of R. v. O'Connor, [1995] 4 SCR 411. The deliberate destruction of evidence in a dismissed case, the addition of files post-dismissal, and the disappearance of photographs constitute conduct that undermines the integrity of the justice system.
¶8.
Spoliation Doctrine: Per SS&C Technologies, 2024 ONCA 675, the Respondent bears the burden of proving the lawfulness of its conduct without reliance on the destroyed evidence. This is a legal impossibility, mandating adverse inference in the Applicant's favour.
¶9.
Charter Violations: The Applicant's rights under the following Charter sections have been violated:
  • Section 7: Life, liberty, and security of the person — denial of full disclosure;
  • Section 9: Arbitrary detention — 45-minute no-charge detention on May 6, 2021;
  • Section 10: Right to reasons and counsel — denied during initial detention;
  • Section 11(d): Presumption of innocence — undermined by fabricated evidence;
  • Section 15: Equality rights — targeted prosecution pattern.
¶10.
Courts of Justice Act, s. 60: This Court has inherent jurisdiction to review the conduct of proceedings in the interests of justice. The documented misconduct warrants exercise of that jurisdiction.

Part IV — Evidence Relied Upon

¶11.
The Applicant relies upon the following evidence:
  1. Affidavit of Francesco Longo, sworn [DATE], with exhibits;
  2. The Original Letter to Patricia Brown dated January 27, 2026 Exhibit A;
  3. Digital disclosure logs showing file additions/deletions post-dismissal Exhibit B;
  4. Timeline analysis demonstrating mathematical impossibility of coincidence Exhibit C;
  5. Audio recordings of Crown admissions (Ashley Dale, Laura Joy) Exhibit D;
  6. Police reports (Constable Gratton #19407; Undertaking signed by Karel de Graaf #7815) Exhibit E;
  7. Court dockets showing alignment of proceedings (July 9, 2021 — 17 motions + Ken Price case) Exhibit F;
  8. Smoking Guns Evidence Package (90 documented instances) Exhibit G;
  9. Such further and other evidence as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.

Part V — Relief Sought

¶12.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS that this Honourable Court grant the following relief:
  1. Declaration that the Crown's conduct in destroying evidence within 14 days of dismissal constitutes spoliation of evidence and abuse of process;
  2. Declaration that the addition of 79 files post-dismissal and removal of 13 photographs constitutes tampering with official court records;
  3. Order compelling production of all remaining disclosure materials, including the 13 missing photographs;
  4. Order preserving all evidence related to the dismissed proceedings pending civil action and regulatory complaints;
  5. Order drawing adverse inferences against the Crown for all destroyed evidence pursuant to SS&C Technologies, 2024 ONCA 675;
  6. Order referring the matter to the Attorney General for investigation of potential Criminal Code offences, including:
    • s. 139 — Obstruction of justice
    • s. 340 — Destroying documents
    • s. 380 — Fraud
    • s. 465 — Conspiracy
  7. Costs of this motion on a substantial indemnity basis;
  8. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

Part VI — Table of Authorities

Case / Statute Citation Proposition
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company 2024 ONCA 675 Spoliation doctrine; mandatory adverse inference
R. v. O'Connor [1995] 4 SCR 411 Abuse of process standard; "shocks the conscience"
R. v. Stinchcombe [1991] 3 SCR 326 Crown's duty to disclose; continuing obligation
R. v. Babos 2014 SCC 16 State misconduct warranting stay of proceedings
R. v. Jordan 2016 SCC 27 Unreasonable delay; presumptive ceilings
Dorsey v. Canada 2025 SCC 38 Damages for systemic Charter violations
Courts of Justice Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 60 Judicial review jurisdiction
Rules of Civil Procedure r. 37, r. 38, r. 37.07 Motion procedures; urgent relief
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ss. 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 24 Fundamental rights; remedies

Schedule A — Index of Exhibits

Exhibit Description Source
A Letter to Patricia Brown (January 27, 2026) — Complete timeline and game plan PATRICIA_BROWN_LETTER.html
B Digital disclosure logs showing post-dismissal file manipulation Crown Disclosure Package
C Statistical analysis — probability of coincidental alignment Expert calculation
D Audio recordings — Ashley Dale, Laura Joy admissions One-party consent recordings (s. 184(2) CC)
E Police reports — Gratton #19407; de Graaf undertaking #7815 Windsor Police Service
F Court dockets — July 9, 2021 alignment (17 motions + Ken Price) Ontario Court Records
G Smoking Guns Evidence Package (SG-001 through SG-091) WINDSOR_CARTEL_GLENN_PROFESSIONAL.html
H Ab Initio Docket Proof — U.S. Docket 05-00263-CR-T-17MSS filed 2005 while Applicant in Canadian custody; physical impossibility analysis; void ab initio doctrine EVIDENCE/CC_Ab_Initio_Docket_Proof_Grok.html; PACER Records
I U.S. v. LONGO, 280 Fed.Appx. 914 (11th Cir. 2008) — Appeal affirming 78-month sentence 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
J Canadian custody records (2005-2006) — Proof of physical presence in Windsor during U.S. docket filing SUBPOENA TARGET: Windsor Police / Ontario Courts
❓ THE RESPONDENT'S IMPOSSIBLE DILEMMA:

• Admit destruction → Consciousness of guilt
• Claim standard procedure → Timeline impossible (14 days vs. 2-year minimum)
• Claim evidence unimportant → Then why destroy it?
• Remain silent → Deemed admission

No matter which path: They lose.

THE APPLICANT, Francesco Longo, respectfully submits this Motion.

DATED at Windsor, Ontario, this _____ day of _______________, 2026.

Francesco Longo
Applicant, Self-Represented
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE]
[EMAIL]

TO: Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario
Crown Law Office — Civil
720 Bay Street, 8th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2S9

AND TO: Registrar, Ontario Superior Court of Justice
245 Windsor Avenue
Windsor, Ontario N9A 1J2

Filing Instructions

1.
E-Filing Portal: File via ontariocourtforms.on.ca
2.
Form Selection: Form 37A (Notice of Motion) OR Form 14E (Notice of Application) if proceeding as application
3.
Supporting Materials: File Affidavit (Form 4D), Book of Authorities, and Exhibit Book concurrently
4.
Service Requirements: Serve Respondent (Attorney General) at least 7 days before hearing (or per r. 37.07 for urgent relief)
5.
If Motion Ignored: Consider mandamus relief under r. 68 to compel action; file CJC complaint if judicial obstruction
6.
Alternative Forum: If Windsor court is unresponsive, refile under r. 38.03 in Toronto/Ottawa
⚠️ Risk Mitigation: This formal motion creates a public record and ensures due process. Avoid informal/ex parte contacts with the judiciary. Document all steps and communications meticulously.

Kijiji Connection — Evidence Collection Protocol

1.
Recorded Affidavit: Obtain a sworn, recorded statement regarding the Kijiji listing timing (May 3, 2021 — 3 days pre-arrest). One-party consent recording permitted under s. 184(2) Criminal Code.
2.
Witness Statement: If witness is reluctant, obtain written statement under oath. Avoid coercive tactics.
3.
Subpoena Option: If necessary, use s. 139 subpoenas to compel production of Crown/Judge communications and related materials regarding the timing alignment.
4.
Coordination: Circulate this motion to Lucy Ceylan, Dave Simetic, and other coalition members for coordinated filing strategy.
Hub Master Evidence Hub Original Letter Smoking Guns Changelog

Form 37A — Notice of Motion for Judicial Review | Last Updated: January 25, 2026 | COURT_SAFE_MODE ACTIVE