**Francesco Giovanni Longo** *Self-Represented Litigant* flongo11@gmail.com 2026-05-08 **By Email** **The Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada** attn: Chantal Carbonneau, Registrar Supreme Court of Canada 301 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1 **Registry-Greffe@SCC-CSC.CA** *cc: OfficeOfTheChiefJustice-CabinetDuJugeEnChef@scc-csc.ca* *cc: Canadian Judicial Council · Secretariat · registry@cjc-ccm.gc.ca* --- **RE: Demand for Identification of Delegated Officer · Demand for Substantive Response to Pleaded Mandamus / Hardship / Interim-Relief · Default Notice Under *Supreme Court Act* and Charter · Longo Filing of 2026-05-05 and 2026-05-07** --- ## I · Identification of the Communication at Issue On 2026-05-08 at approximately 3:52 PM EDT, I received an email from the address `Registry-Greffe@SCC-CSC.CA` purporting to respond to my filings of May 5 and May 7, 2026. The email acknowledged receipt of **three emails dated May 5, 2026 and two emails dated May 7, 2026** — a total of five confirmed receipts on your record. The response: 1. Acknowledged receipt of the five emails; 2. Quoted section 40 of the *Supreme Court Act*, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26 as to the jurisdictional limits of this Court; 3. Provided procedural direction as to the documents required for an application for leave to appeal; 4. Stated, in the first person, *"I suggest that you contact a lawyer"*; 5. Suggested Pro Bono Ontario as a potential resource; 6. **Carried no individual name, no individual title, no individual signature, and no identification of the officer who reviewed my correspondence and drafted the reply.** The signature block read in its entirety: > *Yours truly,* > > *Registry - Greffe* > > *Supreme Court of Canada · 301 Wellington Street · Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1* --- ## II · The Structural Problem with This Communication The communication contains a grammatical and structural defect that is not cosmetic. It shifts voice at the point where it exercises discretion: | Sentence | Voice | Legal character | |---|---|---| | *"This will acknowledge receipt of your three emails..."* | Institutional passive | Formal Registry action | | *"The Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction under section 40..."* | Institutional declarative | Jurisdictional statement | | *"Please note that all documents filed must be served on the other parties."* | Institutional imperative | Procedural rule | | **"I suggest that you contact a lawyer..."** | **Personal first-person pronoun** | **Discretionary advice — whose advice?** | The transition from *"The Supreme Court of Canada has..."* to *"I suggest..."* identifies no *"I."* Under Canadian administrative law, a communication from a court of record exercising delegated statutory discretion must be attributable to the officer exercising that discretion. An unnamed *"I"* is not attribution; it is the absence of attribution. --- ## III · Statutory and Common-Law Basis for the Identification Demand The demand I raise in this letter rests on the following authorities, none of which is novel: ### A · Delegatus non potest delegare *Comeau's Sea Foods Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)*, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 12. A delegated statutory officer cannot sub-delegate the exercise of that delegated authority to a template, to an automated system, or to an anonymous functionary without express legislative authorization. The Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada holds delegated authority under *Supreme Court Act*, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 12. That authority may be exercised by the Registrar personally or by staff acting on her specific and identifiable delegation. It may not be exercised anonymously. ### B · Fettering of discretion *Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Government of Canada*, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2. An officer who applies a rigid template in place of case-specific discretion commits a jurisdictional error that vitiates the exercise. The record you received included case-specific features — an expressly pleaded mandamus element; an expressly pleaded hardship basis (my brother Joseph Longo's terminal cancer diagnosis); an expressly pleaded request for interim relief under Rule 62 of the *Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada*, SOR/2002-156; and a canary-tracker forensic attachment demonstrating systematic interception of prior correspondence. A template response that ignores all four case-specific features is, by definition, fettered. ### C · The duty of procedural fairness *Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)*, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, per L'Heureux-Dubé J. at ¶¶21-28. The duty of procedural fairness scales with the importance of the matter. A matter implicating (i) liberty interests under Charter s.7, (ii) access to justice under Charter s.2(b) and s.10(b), and (iii) hardship relating to a family member's mortality engages the highest level of the procedural-fairness spectrum. An unsigned template response at that level of the spectrum fails *Baker*. ### D · The statutory role of the Registrar *Supreme Court Act*, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, s. 12. The Registrar is a statutory officer of the Court. Communications issued under the Registrar's office carry the weight of the Court itself. A communication issued anonymously from the Registrar's office either (i) identifies the delegated officer or (ii) fails the statute. ### E · Charter s.2(b) · open-court principle *Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp.*, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835. Canadians have a constitutionally-protected right to know who in state authority is acting on their file. That right is not satisfied by a role-mailbox signature. --- ## IV · What the Registry Response Was Silent About My filings of May 5 and May 7 invoked three distinct forms of relief. Your response was silent on all three. Silence on a pleaded demand is not a neutral procedural choice; it is a choice that carries legal consequences. ### A · The Mandamus Element My filings expressly demanded an order in the nature of mandamus compelling the lower courts to produce the record and discharge their duties that have been breached. The Registry response addressed only the leave-to-appeal procedure under section 40 of the *Supreme Court Act*. It did not address the mandamus demand. Silence on a pleaded mandamus demand is a refusal to bring that demand to the Court's attention, which under *Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General)*, [1994] 1 F.C. 742 and its progeny is itself a reviewable failure of the administrative office charged with docketing the demand. ### B · The Hardship Basis My filings expressly invoked the terminal illness of my brother, Joseph Longo, as a hardship basis supporting expedited handling. Under the Court's *Practice Direction on Urgent Matters* and under Rule 6(1)(c) of the *Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada*, hardship is a recognized basis for expedited treatment. The Registry response was silent on this basis. Silence on a pleaded hardship ground is a denial of that ground without reasons, which under *Baker*, ¶¶43-44 is void *ab initio* absent identifiable reasons from the denying officer. ### C · The Interim-Relief Authority My filings expressly requested consideration of interim relief under Rule 62 of the *Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada*, which authorizes interim orders pending disposition of applications. The Registry response was silent on this authority. Silence on a pleaded interim-relief request from a hardship-pleading applicant is a failure of the Registry's statutory duty to bring such requests to the attention of a judge of the Court under Rule 62. --- ## V · The Default Clock My underlying record shows that the Superior Court of Ontario was previously in default on a related filing by approximately 48 days. Your Court received my correspondence on May 5 and May 7, 2026. You are now at or approaching the same default window. The *Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada* do not permit indefinite silence on a pleaded urgent matter, and *Baker* does not permit default on a hardship-pleading applicant. The default clock is running. This letter operates as formal notice that the clock is running, as documented in writing, on the record. --- ## VI · Demand I hereby demand, on the authority of the statutes and decisions cited above, that the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada provide the following information in writing, by reply email to this address, within ten (10) business days of this letter: 1. **The name, title, and delegated-authority basis** of the specific individual Registry officer who reviewed my correspondence of May 5 and May 7, 2026 and drafted the reply of May 8, 2026. 2. **Confirmation, in writing, whether the May 8 reply was** (a) individually drafted by the named officer, (b) generated by an automated template, or (c) selected from a pre-approved template bank by the named officer. If (b) or (c), identify the officer who authorized the template. 3. **Substantive response to the mandamus element** pleaded in my May 5 and May 7 filings, including confirmation that the mandamus demand has been placed before a judge of the Court for consideration. 4. **Substantive response to the hardship basis** pleaded in my May 5 and May 7 filings, including confirmation that the hardship request for expedited handling has been placed before a judge of the Court for consideration, together with reasons if expedited handling is denied. 5. **Substantive response to the interim-relief request** under Rule 62 pleaded in my May 5 and May 7 filings, including confirmation that the request has been placed before a judge of the Court, together with reasons if interim relief is denied. 6. **Formal acknowledgment** that the canary-tracker forensic attachment provided with my May 5 and May 7 filings has been reviewed and placed on the record of the file, with confirmation that the interception pattern it documents has been noted. --- ## VII · Consequence of Non-Compliance Non-compliance with this demand within ten business days will constitute, at minimum: 1. **Confirmation of default** by the Registry on a hardship-pleading urgent matter at the apex court of last resort, documented on the record; 2. **Prima facie evidence of improper sub-delegation** to a template system, actionable under *Comeau's Sea Foods* non-delegation doctrine; 3. **Prima facie evidence of fettering of discretion** actionable under *Maple Lodge Farms*; 4. **Prima facie evidence of a procedural-fairness failure** at the apex court, actionable under *Baker* and Charter s.7; 5. **A formal complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council** under the Council's complaint procedure, naming the Registrar and any judicial officer under whose authority the automated-template system operates; 6. **Documentary evidence for a parallel civil class-action complaint** now in preparation (*IN RE: DENIAL BY DESIGN LITIGATION*, working caption) naming automated institutional deflection of apex-court communications as an exemplar of systematic structural obstruction of access to remedy. --- ## VIII · Preservation Demand You are on notice, as of the date of this letter, that my filings of May 5 and May 7, 2026 and the Registry reply of May 8, 2026 are expected to be preserved in their original form — including all metadata, header fields, routing information, template identifiers, internal routing notes, workflow logs, and any internal communications among Registry staff concerning these filings — for use in subsequent administrative, judicial, and international proceedings. Destruction, alteration, or loss of this record will be treated as spoliation under *Silvestri v. General Motors*, 271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001) standards applicable to international evidentiary proceedings, and sanctions will be sought accordingly. --- ## IX · Respectful Invitation to Resolve I wish to acknowledge that the Registry staff are public servants, and that the specific individual who drafted the May 8 reply may have been following institutional practice without personal choice in the matter. This letter is not directed at any Registry officer individually. It is directed at the institutional practice of issuing unsigned, anonymously-authored procedural responses to hardship-pleading applicants at the apex court of last resort. That practice, if it is a practice, is the issue. Identifying the officer and providing the substantive responses demanded above will resolve the matter without further escalation. --- *Respectfully submitted,* **Francesco Giovanni Longo** *Self-Represented Litigant* *flongo11@gmail.com* --- **Enclosures:** - Original Longo filing of 2026-05-05 (re-attached for reference) - Original Longo filing of 2026-05-07 (re-attached for reference) - Registry-Greffe reply of 2026-05-08 (full email with headers) - Canary-tracker forensic attachment from original filings **Parallel distribution:** - Office of the Chief Justice of Canada - Canadian Judicial Council Secretariat - File record for *IN RE: DENIAL BY DESIGN LITIGATION* class-action complaint now in preparation