EXHIBIT 09 — THE 2021 WINDSOR UNLAWFUL ARREST AND RETROACTIVE CHARGE FABRICATION

R. v. Francesco Giovanni Longo · Case ID 94545 · Occurrence #21-38605 · Information #21-845

Part of: The Longo Archive · Filings corpus · Ab initio master brief 00 → present
Companion filings: Master Index · Ab Initio 00 · US Habeas 02 · Dutton Origin 04 + supplements 04A–04H
Filed into record: April 22, 2026
Compiler: Francesco Giovanni Longo, pro se claimant
Status: Filing-grade · evidence-in-hand · preservation-ready

1. Executive summary

On May 6, 2021 at approximately 3:07 PM, Francesco Giovanni Longo was arrested at Windsor Police Headquarters, detained in custody for approximately 45 minutes, forced to sign an Undertaking containing conditions (no-contact order, stay-away order, mandatory court appearance), released, and subjected to ongoing criminal process.

At the time of arrest and detention, zero charges existed against him.

Charge #211549 (Criminal Code s. 430(1)(a), Mischief Over $5,000) was not created until May 22, 2021 — sixteen (16) days after the arrest — and was created in a police-generated document (Local Police Record MCMS 38) that on its own face reads "Francesco has no current criminal charges" and then creates the charge on the same page.

This exhibit documents:

The impossible timeline by which a person was arrested, detained, bound by court-enforceable conditions, and placed under active prosecution for a charge that did not legally exist until two weeks later;
The three contradictory arrest narratives produced by Windsor Police within a 16-day window, including claims that are physically impossible to reconcile (e.g., a claimant "transported" to detention while simultaneously being a person who "voluntarily attended headquarters");
The conflated case files — two separate occurrences (21-38605 and 21-316880) corresponding to two different alleged dates (May 6 and May 5) and two different charges — which a later Undertaking blends into one proceeding;
The "Badge 20812" identifier — an officer who released claimant on May 6, 2021 from custody that no lawful authority then supported, whose name remains redacted under a "CONFIDENTIAL" marking;
The Crown and Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) dereliction — LAO's 4.5-year refusal to fund counsel for an indigent accused facing an indictable offence carrying a 10-year maximum, in violation of its statutory duty under s. 2(2) of the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998 and its constitutional duty under R. v. Rowbotham (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321 (CA);
The ongoing non-resolution — as of this filing, claimant has never received a formal dismissal order, a CPIC clearance certificate, or any document of the form a court or a Crown Attorney would issue to terminate proceedings. The email he received stating "no longer any active files on you" is not a legal document; claimant remains exposed to reactivation of stayed charges (indefinite, because the charge is indictable), retention of non-conviction records, and the downstream consequences of an un-vacated arrest record.

The remedies sought are: permanent stay of proceedings (abuse of process under R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16), Charter damages under Vancouver (City) v. Ward, 2010 SCC 27 (for breaches of ss. 7, 9, 10(b)), declaratory relief that the May 6, 2021 arrest was without lawful authority and all flowing conditions are void ab initio, production and preservation orders against Windsor Police Service, the Crown Attorney's office, and Legal Aid Ontario, and damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, Charter breaches, malicious prosecution, and LAO's failure to fund.

This exhibit relies on documentary evidence presently held in /inbox_apr22/LAO_bundle/ — four signed LAO filings (draft order, certificate of service, mandamus affidavit, motion for judgment without hearing), the Windsor Police Property Items Report of May 6, 2021, the Judicial Interim Release Order of May 6, 2021, the Supplementary Report of July 11, 2022 (marked "WORK PRODUCT" to resist disclosure), the Undertakings of May 6 and June 8, 2021, the Local Police Record MCMS 38 of May 22, 2021 (the self-contradicting charge-creation document), the Information of July 14, 2022 (#21-845), and two audio transcripts memorializing LAO intake staff admitting systemic barriers to access.

2. The impossible timeline

2.1 May 6, 2021 — arrest without charges

  2:20 PM    Officer P. Gratton (badge 19407) attends 544 California Ave
             in stated attempt to arrest claimant. Not found.
             Gratton telephones claimant at 226-260-6399 — no answer.
             (Initial Officer's Report, MCMS 02, p. 23)

  Afternoon  Claimant attends Windsor Police Headquarters voluntarily
             (believes he is there to discuss a civil matter).

  3:07 PM    Arrest occurs. Occurrence #21-38605 opened.
             ZERO CHARGES EXIST IN CPIC OR ON COURT DOCKET.

  3:07 PM –  Claimant detained in custody, approximately 45 minutes.
  ~3:52 PM   Property seized (cash, wallet, keys, cell phone, chapstick).

  5:51 PM    Property Items Report completed and signed.
             "Returned by: badge 20812."
             Document lists arrest, detention, and release.
             CHARGES LISTED: NONE.

  Evening    Claimant executes Undertaking:
             • No contact with Hayley and Steven ZVANIGA
             • Stay away from 2948 St Clair Ave
             • Report to Ontario Court of Justice June 16, 2021, 11:30 AM
             Conditions are enforceable by arrest if breached.
             NO CHARGE NUMBER APPEARS ON UNDERTAKING.

2.2 May 22, 2021 — charge created sixteen days later, in a self-contradicting document

  2:22 PM    Local Police Record (MCMS 38) generated.
             Case ID 94545. Occurrence 21-38605.
             Document text (top of page):
                 "Francesco has NO CURRENT CRIMINAL CHARGES."

  2:27 PM    SAME document — five minutes later — records:
                 "Charge #211549 created:
                  CC 430(1)(a) Mischief Over $5,000."

             The charge is now dated backward to connect to the
             May 6 arrest occurrence, supplying after-the-fact
             "lawful authority" for events sixteen days past.

2.3 June 8, 2021 — a second Undertaking introduces a second occurrence and a second charge

  June 8     Second Undertaking signed.
             Occurrence: 21-316880 (new, not the May 6 arrest occurrence).
             Charge: Threaten to cause death/bodily harm, CC 264.1(1)(a).
             Alleged date of offence: MAY 5, 2021 — one day before the
             May 6 arrest, but not used to justify the May 6 arrest.

Two different occurrence numbers, two different alleged dates, two different charges, both administered as one prosecution under the single Case ID 94545.

2.4 July 11, 2022 — a supplementary report marked "WORK PRODUCT"

Fourteen months after the arrest, Officer P. Gratton (badge 19407) generates a Supplementary Report explaining the brevity of certain video evidence (5–10 second clips). The document is marked "WORK PRODUCT" — an improper assertion of litigation privilege over what should be disclosable investigative material. At the date of this supplementary report, the document still lists no charges in the charges field.

2.5 July 14, 2022 — Information #21-845 delivered

Fifteen months after the arrest, and more than a year after Charge #211549's retroactive creation, the Information document (#21-845) is served on claimant. This is the first formally-constituted Information in the matter.

3. The three contradictory arrest narratives

Between May 6, 2021 (the day of arrest) and May 22, 2021 (the day the charge was created), Windsor Police Service produced three separate and mutually contradictory narrative accounts of how claimant came to be in their custody.

#	Source document	Time claimed	Method claimed	Key assertion
1	Initial Officer's Report (MCMS 02, p. 23), 3:07 PM same-day	2:20 PM	Attended 544 California Ave (negative); phoned 226-260-6399 (negative)	Claimant could not be located; officer requested warrant
2	Local Police Record (MCMS 38, p. 19), generated May 22, 2021	Afternoon	Phone call in which "the accused exploded over the phone, yelling that he had been denied what was owed to him"	Officers suggested claimant surrender himself; claimant attended headquarters at 6:10 PM
3	Supplementary Report (p. 27), 6:30 PM same-day	6:10 PM	Dispatch advised a "suspect... currently in the main office"; officer then "transported LONGO to the detention centre"	Handcuffed and transported (i.e., moved from somewhere to somewhere)

3.1 The incompatibilities

Incompatibility A — the phone call. Narrative #1 records the attempted call as "negative" (no answer). Narrative #2 records a substantive phone conversation during which claimant "exploded over the phone." Both cannot be true. A phone that did not answer cannot have produced an outburst.

Incompatibility B — the surrender vs. the transport. Narrative #2 has claimant voluntarily attending headquarters. Narrative #3 has the same officer, on the same day, in the same matter, describing claimant as "currently in the main office" and then being "transported... to the detention centre." A person already inside police headquarters cannot be "transported" to a facility they are already in. In policing vocabulary, transport denotes a vehicle-based conveyance under officer control from one location to another — an action taken following a field arrest, not a walk-in surrender.

Incompatibility C — the warrant. Narrative #1 concludes by stating the officer "respectfully request[s] that a warrant be issued for LONGO." A warrant is sought precisely because lawful arrest authority is not otherwise present. If a warrant was issued and executed, the warrant document should exist on the file. If it was not issued, the May 6 arrest had no warrant backing and the subject did not qualify for warrantless arrest (no indictable-in-flagrante, no reasonable-and-probable-grounds documentation attached, and — crucially — no charge yet in existence).

3.2 The legal weight of three narratives

In the leading Canadian abuse-of-process case R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16, the Court held that fabrication of evidence by state actors is "one of the clearest examples of abuse of process." Three contradictory narratives, produced by the same force within sixteen days of the operative event and covering a period during which no charge legally existed, are prima facie evidence of narrative construction after the fact — that is, of fabrication. The remedy contemplated by Babos for fabrication of this severity is a permanent stay of proceedings under the residual category of abuse of process.

4. The 20812 badge — the officer who released claimant from custody that had no lawful basis

The Property Items Report of May 6, 2021 records, under "Returned By:", the number 20812. The officer's name is redacted under a "CONFIDENTIAL" marking. This identifier is material for three reasons:

Badge 20812 released claimant from a detention that had no lawful basis.
The redaction prevents claimant from identifying the officer, serving him, adding him to civil proceedings, and obtaining his contemporaneous notes — itself a disclosure problem under R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326.
The property-return receipt is documentary proof that custody occurred, that it was ended with a routine formality (property return), and that — critically — the receipt itself lists no charges.

Production and preservation request 09-A: The name of the officer whose warrant-card/badge number is 20812, the officer's contemporaneous notebook for May 6, 2021, the custody-log entries corresponding to claimant's intake and release, and the internal chain-of-custody records for the property seized and returned.

5. The conflated case files

5.1 Occurrence 21-38605 (May 6 arrest, Mischief Over $5,000)

Charge, when created: CC 430(1)(a), mischief over $5,000, indictable, 10-year maximum.
Victims named in the no-contact condition: Hayley and Steven Zvaniga.
Address in the stay-away condition: 2948 St Clair Ave, Windsor, Ontario.
Arrest occurrence number: 21-38605.

5.2 Occurrence 21-316880 (May 5, Threaten Death or Bodily Harm)

Alleged date of offence: May 5, 2021 — the day before the May 6 arrest.
Charge: CC 264.1(1)(a), threaten to cause death or bodily harm.
Appears on the Undertaking of June 8, 2021.
Administered under the same Case ID (94545) as occurrence 21-38605, compressing two allegedly-separate events into a single prosecution.

5.3 Why the conflation matters

If the May 6 arrest was for occurrence 21-38605 (mischief), there was no charge to justify the arrest.
If the May 6 arrest was for occurrence 21-316880 (threat, alleged May 5), the arrest occurrence on the release documents (21-38605) is wrong.
If the arrest was for both, it was for a matter that existed (threat, May 5) and a matter that did not yet exist (mischief, May 6, charge not created until May 22).

No version of these facts produces a lawful May 6 arrest.

6. Charter violations

6.1 Section 9 — arbitrary detention

A detention is arbitrary where it is not authorized by law. On May 6, 2021: no charge in existence; no warrant on file authorizing arrest; no reasonable-and-probable-grounds documentation accompanying the day-of records. The approximately 45-minute custody period is a completed Charter breach independent of any subsequent charge.

6.2 Section 10(b) — right to counsel

The s. 10(b) right presumes the detained person is informed of the reason for the detention. R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33, and R. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35, establish that the informational component of s. 10(b) is engaged immediately upon detention. Where no charge exists, it cannot have been properly discharged.

6.3 Section 7 — fundamental justice

The retroactive creation of a charge — a document that, on its own face, recites that "no current criminal charges" exist and then creates one within the same document — is not compatible with the principle that deprivations of liberty occur in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

6.4 Section 11(b) — trial within a reasonable time

Under R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, the presumptive ceiling for provincial-court matters is 18 months; this matter is well past 50 months by any reasonable counting. Delay is presumptively unreasonable and a stay is the appropriate remedy.

6.5 Section 11(d) — right to a fair hearing

The fair-hearing right requires equality of arms, which for an indigent accused facing an indictable offence of 10-year maximum exposure requires funded counsel (Rowbotham). Each element was denied on this file.

7. Legal Aid Ontario dereliction

7.1 The statutory duty

Section 2(2) of the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 26, requires LAO to provide criminal legal-aid services. Criminal legal aid is not discretionary in its subject-matter.

7.2 The constitutional floor

R. v. Rowbotham (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321 (CA), held that where an indigent accused faces a serious charge raising complex issues, the Charter (ss. 7 and 11(d)) requires the state to fund counsel. The three-part test was, on any evaluation, met on this file:

Indigence: claimant was intermittently homeless, without stable employment, and unable to retain private counsel at any point across the four-plus years of the prosecution.
Seriousness: Mischief Over $5,000 is an indictable offence carrying a ten-year maximum; Threaten Death is hybrid with up to five years on indictment; the prosecution spanned more than four years.
Complexity: the file involves multiple occurrence numbers, conflicting narratives, retroactive charge creation, interlocking civil and criminal dimensions, allegations of spoliation, cross-border extradition history, and systemic Charter issues.

7.3 The breach

Claimant applied under file reference CLT 132-5791. The application was refused. The refusal was maintained over approximately four and a half years. Eleven (11) audio recordings in claimant's possession record LAO staff acknowledging systemic access barriers. The four signed LAO filings now on disk — draft order, certificate of service, mandamus affidavit, motion for judgment without hearing — were prepared by claimant pro se to force LAO to discharge its duty by judicial order.

7.4 The remedy sought from LAO

Mandamus directing LAO to fund ongoing proceedings (including file-destruction, CPIC clearance, and any re-litigation arising from reactivation of stayed charges);
Damages under the Ward framework and the tort-of-breach-of-statute framework in Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 SCR 1228;
Declaratory relief that LAO's refusals over the four-and-a-half-year period constituted Charter breaches under ss. 7 and 11(d);
Structural order requiring LAO to report to the court on changes to its intake process sufficient to prevent recurrence.

8. The "no longer any active files" email — not a dismissal

Claimant has received email correspondence containing the phrase "no longer any active files on you." The phrase is administrative, not legal. It is not a court order, a formal disposition, a CPIC clearance certificate, a file-destruction order, or a stamped or certified court document.

Under Canadian criminal procedure:

Withdrawn charges are ended by Crown election; no judicial determination.
Stayed charges under s. 579(1) of the Criminal Code may be reactivated within one year for summary matters and indefinitely for indictable matters. The mischief charge is indictable. Reactivation risk is therefore permanent absent a superseding order.
Dismissed charges require a court order and a formal disposition entry.
Acquitted matters require a trial verdict.

An email is none of these. Until claimant receives a formal disposition order plus a CPIC clearance certificate plus (if applicable) a file-destruction order, he remains subject to the legal continuation of this matter. LAO's duty to fund, and Crown's duty to disclose, accordingly continue.

Production and preservation request 09-B: the Crown Attorney's formal disposition document for Case ID 94545; the CPIC record for claimant as of the date of this filing; any file-destruction determination on Occurrence 21-38605 and 21-316880; and all internal Crown memoranda concerning disposition of the file between January 2025 and April 2026.

9. Evidence inventory — what is on disk

9.1 Markdown analyses (internal work product, filing-grade)

File	Subject
`SMOKING_GUN_UNLAWFUL_ARREST.md`	Full analysis of arrest-without-charges, retroactive charge creation, charter violations
`SMOKING_GUN_ARREST_NARRATIVES_CONTRADICTIONS.md`	Three-narrative fabrication analysis
`EMERGENCY_STAY_APPLICATION_EXPLOSIVE_EVIDENCE.md`	Stay-application framework
`LAO_LEGAL_DUTY_ANALYSIS.md`	LAO statutory, constitutional, and common-law duty analysis

9.2 Signed LAO filings (ready to serve / file)

File	Filing type
`SIGNED LAO MANDAMUSAFFIDAVIT_FRANCESCO_GIOVANNI_LONGO_FINAL (1).pdf`	Mandamus affidavit
`SIGNED LAO DRAFT_ORDER_FINAL (1).pdf`	Draft order
`SIGNED LAO CERTIFICATE_OF_SERVICE_FINAL (1).pdf`	Certificate of service
`SIGNED LAO MOTION_JUDGMENT_WITHOUT_HEARING_FINAL (1).pdf`	Motion for judgment without hearing

9.3 Primary documentary evidence

File	Relevance
`Confidential return by. 20812. Picture..png`	Property Items Report, May 6, 2021 — badge 20812, no charges listed
`INTERM RELEASEPolice report may 6th 2021..JPG`	Judicial Interim Release Order, May 6, 2021 — references a charge that did not yet exist
`WORK PRODUCT.JPG`	Supplementary Report, July 11, 2022 — improper "WORK PRODUCT" marking, still listing no charges
`Undertaking June 16th. 2021 11. 30AM.jpg`	June 8, 2021 Undertaking introducing second occurrence (21-316880)
`INFO # 21 845 July 14 2022.JPG`	Information #21-845 as served, July 14, 2022
`INFO REPORT FORTUNE.PNG`	Information filed by Officer Fortune
`May 16th lied my. date Michael Fortune..png`	Documentary incongruity in Officer Fortune's dating
`CREATED FOREIGN CGARGES.PNG`	Non-Canadian references appearing in the file
`CRIMINAL RECORD MADE IN PLAIN SIGHT.pdf`	Annotated record-trail
`Generated summary of the accused.PNG`	Police-generated summary of accused
`ZERO CR CREATED .PNG`	Zero-criminal-record annotation
`RCMP BOUNCED EMAILS.pdf`	Emails to RCMP bounced / undeliverable
`Fingerprint level 1 may 25th 2021 Francesco Longo.png`	Level-1 fingerprint record dated May 25, 2021
`MUG SHOT 1 MIN.png`	Booking-photo image
`Video evidence received July 6 2022..jpg`	Video evidence timeline
`14 JULY 2022 received July 6 2022..JPG`	Date-of-service anomaly
`discloser 2.txt`	Disclosure-index text file

9.4 Audio transcripts

File	Content
`01_Complete_Audio_Transcripts - Copy.pdf`	Complete transcript bundle — LAO staff admissions
`02_Supplemental_Audio_Transcripts.pdf`	Supplemental transcripts

9.5 Screenshots and structural critique

File	Content
`Screenshot (8).png`, `(23).png`, `(24).png`, `(101).png`	Document and system screenshots entered into the record
`LAO STUDY.pdf`, `LSO LAO DENIAL SYSTEM.pdf`	Structural critique of LAO / LSO denial mechanisms

10. Relief sought

Declaratory relief that the arrest of claimant on May 6, 2021 at Windsor Police Headquarters was without lawful authority;
Declaratory relief that the detention flowing from that arrest was arbitrary within the meaning of s. 9 of the Charter;
Declaratory relief that the conditions imposed by the Undertaking of May 6, 2021 are void ab initio for lack of a lawful charge to anchor them;
Declaratory relief that Charge #211549 was created on May 22, 2021 and could not, as a matter of law, supply retroactive authority for events occurring on May 6, 2021;
Permanent stay of proceedings on Case ID 94545 (Occurrences 21-38605 and 21-316880) under the residual category of abuse of process as articulated in R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16;
Charter damages under the Ward framework for the s. 9, s. 10(b), s. 7, and s. 11(d) breaches, quantified in a separate damages exhibit;
Mandamus directing Legal Aid Ontario to fund ongoing proceedings;
Damages against LAO for breach of statutory duty under s. 2(2) of the Legal Aid Services Act and for Charter breach under ss. 7 and 11(d);
Production orders (see §11 below);
Preservation orders (see §12 below);
Referral to appropriate disciplinary and criminal-investigative bodies in respect of specific officers and counsel whose conduct on this file may constitute obstruction, perjury, or breach of the Police Services Act and Law Society Act.

11. Schedule of production orders sought

Original contemporaneous notebook entries of Officer P. Gratton (badge 19407) for May 6, 2021.
Original contemporaneous notebook entries of the officer bearing badge 20812 for May 6, 2021, including the officer's name for service.
Windsor Police Service dispatch logs (CAD) for May 6, 2021 covering 2:00 PM to 7:30 PM.
Custody-log entries at Windsor Police Headquarters for May 6, 2021, including intake time, detention location, and release time.
Radio transmissions for the relevant dispatch period.
Internal Windsor Police communications (email, messaging, memoranda) referencing claimant between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021.
The full Windsor Police file relating to Occurrence 21-38605 and Occurrence 21-316880, without the "WORK PRODUCT" redactions on investigative material.
All Information documents in the Ontario Court of Justice file.
The complete Crown disclosure package for Case ID 94545, cross-referenced against claimant's disclosure log to identify missing pages (pages 29–40 of the core package are noted as blank or heavily redacted).
The 13 photographs referenced in the Windsor Police file but not produced in disclosure.
Legal Aid Ontario's file on CLT 132-5791 in its entirety.
The Crown Attorney's formal disposition document for Case ID 94545, or a written acknowledgment that no formal disposition has been entered.
Claimant's current CPIC record.
Any file-destruction determination on Occurrences 21-38605 and 21-316880.

12. Schedule of preservation orders sought

All records listed in the production schedule above, preserved against any routine-destruction schedule.
All body-worn camera and in-car camera footage (if any) for the officers involved on May 6, 2021 and on any subsequent day on which claimant was in direct interaction with Windsor Police Service.
All server-side logs at Windsor Police Service sufficient to establish the creation timestamps of the Property Items Report of May 6, 2021; the Judicial Interim Release Order of May 6, 2021; the Local Police Record MCMS 38 of May 22, 2021; the Supplementary Report of July 11, 2022; and the Information #21-845 of July 14, 2022.
All records held by Legal Aid Ontario concerning file CLT 132-5791, including intake call recordings.
All internal LSO/LAO studies referenced in the LAO STUDY.pdf and LSO LAO DENIAL SYSTEM.pdf documents.
All Crown internal memoranda concerning disposition of Case ID 94545 between January 2025 and the date of this filing.

13. Authorities relied on

13.1 Constitutional

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 9, 10(b), 11(b), 11(d), 24(1).

13.2 Statutory

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 430(1)(a), 264.1(1)(a), 579(1).
Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 26, s. 2(2).
Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15.
Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8.

13.3 Case law

R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16 — abuse of process; fabrication; residual category stay.
R. v. Rowbotham (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321 (CA) — state duty to fund counsel.
Vancouver (City) v. Ward, 2010 SCC 27 — Charter damages.
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326 — Crown duty to disclose.
R. v. O'Connor, [1995] 4 SCR 411 — abuse of process; disclosure failures.
R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 — unreasonable delay.
R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 SCR 241 — reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.
R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 33 — moment of detention; immediate s. 10(b) engagement.
R. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35 — scope of s. 10(b).
Henry v. British Columbia (A.G.), 2015 SCC 24 — wrongful-conviction damages under s. 24(1).
Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 SCR 1228 — statutory breach as tort foundation.
May v. Ferndale Institution, 2005 SCC 82 — habeas corpus and Charter remedies.
Apotex Inc. v. Canada (A.G.), [1994] 1 F.C. 742 — mandamus; duty to act.
Conille v. Hobart, [1999] 3 F.C. 528 — mandamus requirements.
SS&C Technologies Inc. v. Bank of New York Mellon, 2024 ONCA 675 — spoliation; adverse inference.

14. Cross-references within the Longo Archive

00_AB_INITIO_MASTER_BRIEF.md — places this exhibit within the two-decade operational theory and links the 2021 Windsor branch to the 2004–2005 Tampa branch.
02_US_HABEAS_CORAM_NOBIS_MDFL.md — establishes the earlier federal unlawful-extradition context; this exhibit documents the subsequent Canadian unlawful-arrest context and demonstrates continuity of technique.
03_EXHIBIT_FEB21-23_MASS_BLAST_SUPPRESSION.md — documents the February 2026 suppression wave that followed publication of these materials; establishes present-day retaliation pattern relevant to credibility.
04_EXHIBIT_DUTTON_ORIGIN_2004_WOMACK_FLIP.md and supplements 04A–04H — establish the origin-of-operation at the U.S. end and anchor the structural argument that the Canadian 2021 matter is a downstream continuation of the 2004–2005 U.S. matter rather than an independent prosecution.
MASTER_INDEX_AND_PUBLIC_BRIEF.md — provides the navigable front door through which any reader can locate this exhibit's place within the full corpus.

15. Standard of this exhibit

This exhibit is compiled by the claimant pro se, without legal-aid funded counsel, using his own primary-source documents and his own analyses prepared under the LAO_bundle/ work product, with the assistance of general-purpose AI tooling for organization and drafting. Every factual assertion in this exhibit is traceable to a specific document on disk listed in §9. Every legal proposition is traceable to a cited authority in §13. The exhibit is prepared in the form in which it would be tendered to a court; any deficiency in form that would follow from the absence of funded counsel is itself a fact within Rowbotham-type argument and goes to the weight of the LAO dereliction claim in §7.

The exhibit is dated and filed into the record on April 22, 2026, and will be superseded by any amended version under the same exhibit number carrying a later date.

16. 2025 Retaliation Phase — operational extension of the 2021 branch

Added April 25, 2026 as a supplementary section to this exhibit. The facts in this section post-date the April 22, 2026 original filing and are pleaded as continuing-tort evidence flowing from the 2021 unlawful arrest and the 2004–2005 extradition origin (see companion Exhibit 00 and Exhibit 04 supplements).

16.1 Overview

Between July 9, 2025 and October 25, 2025, claimant experienced a two-phase operational sequence that claimant pleads as an attempted prison-file-swap / proxy-assassination flowing from, and causally continuous with, the 2021 Windsor matter documented in the preceding sections. The sequence comprises: (i) a preparation phase on or about July 9, 2025, in which child-exploitation-related documentation associated with a Windsor Police officer was caused to be inserted into claimant's Windsor corrections file; and (ii) an activation phase on October 25, 2025, in which Windsor Police officers presented themselves at claimant's residential door two days after a procedurally irregular Nunavut-routed court notice had been served on him. The operational logic of the sequence — and its connection to the 2005 Canadian extradition matter — is set out in §§ 16.2–16.6 below.

16.2 July 9, 2025 — Ken Price sentencing and file-swap insertion

On July 9, 2025, claimant personally witnessed Sergeant Kenneth Price of the Windsor Police Service being sentenced in Windsor court on child-exploitation offences. Price received a sentence of probation. Claimant was the sole member of the public present in the courtroom on that day.

Claimant notes: (a) the outfit Price wore at sentencing is the same outfit visible in claimant's photographic record of Price's earlier trial-phase appearance, permitting same-individual confirmation across both proceedings; (b) Price is a member of the same police service that effected claimant's May 6, 2021 arrest without lawful charges (see §§ 2–3 of this exhibit); and (c) on or about the date of Price's sentencing, Price's disciplinary / child-exploitation file was caused to be inserted into claimant's Windsor corrections file. The tactic — annotating a targeted inmate's file with "child-offender" material — is a documented method of inducing prisoner-on-prisoner assassination in Canadian correctional settings. Had claimant been taken into any correctional setting thereafter carrying that annotation, he would have been exposed to lethal risk on arrival.

Claimant pleads the July 9, 2025 file-swap insertion as the preparation phase of the 2025 retaliation arc, and as a distinct tort of (a) malice supporting aggravated damages under Vancouver (City) v. Ward, 2010 SCC 27, and (b) abuse of process meeting the threshold of R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16.

16.3 October 23, 2025 — language-rights notice and 000573 case-code reproduction

On October 23, 2025, claimant received a language-rights notice routed through Nunavut-labeled provincial-court channels, bearing a hand-written case-code of "000573" on the face of the document. Claimant had resided at his Windsor, Ontario address for approximately four-and-a-half years as of that date. Claimant had no active language-rights matter in any jurisdiction, and was not party to any proceeding in which a s. 530 Criminal Code language-rights advisement would be procedurally required.

The notice bears no rational relationship to any lawful court business known to claimant. It is pleaded as a sham procedural artefact engineered to (a) establish a pretextual "active proceeding" against claimant in a remote northern venue, and (b) create a paper hook for the subsequent October 25, 2025 residential attendance described in § 16.6.

The "000573" hand-written case-code is identical to the case number of the 2005 Canadian extradition proceeding against claimant — Case No. 05-CR-573, Superior Court of Justice, Toronto Region (In the Matter of an Application pursuant to section 13 of the Extradition Act for a provisional warrant for the arrest of Francesco Longo). The reproduction of the exact case number of a twenty-year-old extradition proceeding on a 2025 procedural document targeting the same respondent is a statistical-impossibility coincidence. Claimant pleads it as direct evidence that the party who caused the 2025 Nunavut/Ontario notice to issue had access to, or operational continuity with, the archived 2005 extradition file — i.e., the same network. The only individuals or offices with such continuity are those identified in the 2005 extradition packet itself and their institutional successors (see Exhibit 04A–04H supplements).

16.4 Ontario dual-capacity architecture

The procedural significance of the Ontario routing is that Ontario is the only province in Canada in which a single judicial officer may sit in both provincial and federal capacity concurrently, permitting cross-jurisdictional procedural coverage not available in any other province. Directing the October 23, 2025 notice through that dual-capacity posture — while presenting a Nunavut dispatch label on its face — allowed the originating party to engage claimant procedurally without identifying the originating authority on the face of the document. This architecture is pleaded as evidence of deliberate authorship-laundering, and as a fact that independently meets the R. v. Babos "residual category" branch of abuse of process (conduct that "undermines the integrity of the judicial system").

16.5 Samantha Gibson preservation demand

Claimant identified Samantha Gibson, a Superior Court officer present in the transmission chain of the October 23, 2025 notice, and placed her on notice by recorded correspondence (audio and/or email) to the effect that (a) whoever signed the notice had effectively signed a directive exposing claimant to a death-by-proxy operational sequence, and (b) Gibson is obliged to preserve the original notice and any fingerprint impressions or other forensic traces on it as evidence. The preservation demand is pleaded as a perfected evidence-preservation request of the sort contemplated by SS&C Technologies Inc. v. Bank of New York Mellon, 2024 ONCA 675 (spoliation; adverse inference from destruction of evidence following notice).

Any subsequent destruction, alteration, reclassification, or "loss" of the October 23, 2025 notice or any forensic evidence on it, after the date of claimant's preservation demand to Gibson, is pleaded as grounds for adverse inference and aggravated damages.

16.6 October 25, 2025 — Windsor Police activation at residence

On October 25, 2025 · two days after the language-rights notice described in § 16.3, claimant's residential intercom / door-buzzer was activated. Claimant answered. The parties at the door identified themselves as, or were understood by claimant to be, Windsor Police officers. They articulated no lawful basis for their presence; claimant asked what they wanted, received no coherent response, and instructed them to leave. They left without entering.

Claimant pleads this encounter as the activation / attempted-execution phase of the prison-file-swap plot staged after the July 9, 2025 Price sentencing. The operational sequence contemplated: (a) conversion of the encounter into a custodial interaction; (b) transport of claimant into a correctional setting carrying the pre-planted "child-offender" annotation in his file (as described in § 16.2); and (c) reliance on the anticipated prisoner-on-prisoner outcome that the file-annotation tactic is known to produce. Claimant's refusal to admit the officers is pleaded as the event that interrupted the sequence.

16.7 Legal characterization of the 2025 phase

The 2025 phase is pleaded as:

Continuing tort arising from the 2021 Windsor unlawful arrest and retroactive charge fabrication — the 2021 matter remains unresolved (see § 8 of this exhibit) and the 2025 phase is its operational continuation.
Attempted proxy-assassination — conduct engaging s. 7 (security of the person) and s. 12 (cruel and unusual treatment) of the Charter. Intentional engineering of a prisoner-on-prisoner lethal outcome is on its face cruel and unusual; the attempt is actionable even though the outcome did not materialize.
Abuse of process meeting both branches of R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16 — the main branch (prejudice to claimant's ability to make full answer and defence to the continuing 2021 matter) and the residual branch (conduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system).
Fraud on the court analog — reproduction of the 2005 extradition case number on a 2025 procedural document crosses into fraud-on-the-court territory of the sort analyzed in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) — a United States authority cited here for its principle that judicial proceedings tainted by deliberate deception of the court are voidable ab initio regardless of elapsed time.
Spoliation exposure — by reason of claimant's October 2025 preservation demand to Samantha Gibson (see § 16.5), any subsequent loss or alteration of the October 23, 2025 notice supports an adverse inference under SS&C Technologies v. BNY Mellon, 2024 ONCA 675.

16.8 Remedies extension

Claimant adopts and incorporates by reference the remedies pleaded in § 12 of this exhibit, and further claims, in respect of the 2025 phase specifically:

Declaratory relief that the October 23, 2025 Nunavut-routed language-rights notice was issued without lawful authority and is void ab initio, and that the October 25, 2025 Windsor Police attendance at claimant's residence was without lawful authority;
Charter damages under Vancouver (City) v. Ward, 2010 SCC 27, for breaches of ss. 7, 9, and 12 of the Charter arising from the 2025 phase, in addition to the damages claimed in § 12 for the 2021 phase;
Production and preservation orders against the Windsor Police Service, the Nunavut provincial-court registry, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice registry, and Samantha Gibson in her official capacity, in respect of: (a) the original October 23, 2025 notice and any forensic evidence on it; (b) all records associated with Occurrence / file entries concerning claimant between July 1, 2025 and present; (c) all communications between Windsor Police Service personnel and Nunavut court personnel concerning claimant between July 1, 2025 and present;
Adverse inference against any party that fails to produce, or produces in altered form, evidence within the scope of the preservation demand at § 16.5;
Aggravated and punitive damages for the malice evidenced by the two-phase attempted proxy-assassination sequence.

— End of Exhibit 09 —

Filed into the Longo Archive · /a0/usr/workdir/filings/ · 2026-04-22

Primary-source document · auto-rendered from canonical Markdown source at /filings/09_EXHIBIT_2021_WINDSOR_UNLAWFUL_ARREST_RETROACTIVE_CHARGE_FABRICATION.md · canadianpeoplestrust.com