August 30th, 2022 Vancouver – applying for a right to appeal
before Justice Mary Newbury
I found Justice Newbury an engaging judge with an excellent “judicial temper”
She fairly requested some evidence be provided prior to making her decision. Having been ignored so many times in the past and the volume of evidence in my possession and my limited resources and experience, it’s always hard to know what to bring. But my first impression is that she listened and engaged and with an open mind to resolving the problem before the Court. She did however invoke “judicial independence” to protect judicial conduct, instead of its actual purpose, which is for the protection of the public. I did inform the court that they were judging from the incorrect perspective – which is from the public’s perception, not their own but it appears that this comment fell on deaf ears, or as I mentioned denial is easier than debate.
This is what I intended to say, not what was actually said, but mostly what was said. Some additions were made to respond to questions from Justice and some were dropped as they no longer seemed necessary. But the guts of the argument remains.
My understanding is that the issue of the constitutionality of the courts has not been resolved judicially at this time. The matter was ignored. The letter I wrote to the PM’s office that I read to the court on December 3rd has been received including the relevant correspondence including threats to destroy evidence by the RCMP, my UN human rights submission, my charter of right notice, my submission to the Parliamentary committee on human rights and justice which was deleted from the committee record, and the acceptance of my complaint of the conduct of the MOJ to the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner and forwarded the matter to the Minster of Public Safety since forwarding the matter to the Minister of Justice previously did not solve the matter. The Minister of Public Safety has not responded at this time since receipt of the communication from the PM’s office in early March.
I made freedom of expression arguments regarding my conduct being one of a protest and presented facts regarding failures in the rule of law throughout the legal system involving lawyers, the BC Law Society, the RCMP, The CJC, The MOJ and the PM’s duty as the Prime Minister in the Canadian Parliamentary system with respect to Ministerial responsibility, the doctrine of the separation of powers and the constitutional requirement for the rule of law to protect Democracy.
The CJC without proper legal authority claim that Judges have unreviewable discretion and calls requests for review of their discretion an abuse of process.
The Dep AG office was served with the enforcement procedure of the Charter. It has never been responded to and Crown, reports that they will not be providing a response. The Crown is in breach of the Charter. Crown cannot legally enforce the law when they are in breach. That breach has been acknowledged, but the requirement to resolve the breach has been denied repeatedly by Crown prosecution. I imagine because in a highly hierarchal system as the legal system maintains they might feel improperly duty bound to protect their most senior officer, the AG/MOJ and denial is easier than argument. The MOJ is claiming that he has no lawful right to be involved in the process of the CJC when that is simply not true. Claiming that he trusts the process of the CJC when the federal court has labelled the process as “abusive” in the Justice Smith Matter. We have a constitutional crisis. A breach in the Charter. Zero response from Crown. That is a situation which puts the integrity of the Court in doubt for all Canadians.
On July 1st, 2021 a local West Kootenay newspaper, the Valley Voice printed a full page outlining my experience in the legal system and made democratic and legal appeals for justice. The problem started with a lawyer not complying with a court order to provide trust account statements and ended with collusion combined with failures by the BC Law Society to properly exercise their statutory duty to protect the public. At trial, a Judge then abused his power of discretion to protect lawyers committing fraud upon the court by calling upon the Plaintiff, a woman, to perjure herself, to protect her lawyer. And preferring her testimony to mine, supported by the official court record, the transcript of the hearing.
I disclosed to the public my complaint regarding Judge Shaw’s conduct to the Canadian Judicial Council. The CJC claims that review of discretion is not in their mandate and refused to allow a review of their discretion and ultimately told me that my request was an abuse of process. The Ontario Law Society claims that Mr Sabourin was not acting as a lawyer in his capacity at the CJC, despite his title of senior counsel and they would not examine his conduct.
The rules that the CJC has determined for the judging of judicial conduct are fairly straightforward.
“Is the conduct alleged so manifestly and profoundly destructive of the concept of impartiality, integrity and independence of the judicial role, that public confidence would be sufficiently undermined to render the judge incapable of executing the judicial office?”
”Judicial independence exists for the benefit of the judged, not the judges. It is therefore to be assessed from the perspective of the reasonable observer and in light of the public interests it is meant to serve.”
Canadians know that a judge that cannot see the correct decision in this situation is not a judge. If a Judge cannot judge which evidence is preferred when presented with the transcript then how can we possibly trust Judges with our rights, our finances, our lives, and our children. The entire Charter of Rights becomes meaningless; the guarantee of a “fair and impartial” trial, our right to Appeal becomes an arbitrary decision, and the foundation of Democracy is destroyed.
I appealed to the United Nations as they have recognized that human rights abuses throughout time have largely been caused by abuses of power and labelled the problem directly in the Declaration of Human Rights
“whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”
The breaches of trust, debt and continual harassment by public servants ultimately led to me serving the Attorney General and Minister of Justice David Lametti in March 2020 following the Charter of Rights enforcement procedure.
Section 24(1) of the Charter reads:
“Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.”
Since Parliament offers the only method for a removal of a judge I wrote
“The only Court of competent jurisdiction to judge the judges who judge the judges is Parliament. I have currently lost most of my legal rights except obviously my right to life but I am in fear of losing that. I am hereby applying to Parliament for the protection of my charter of rights. Obviously urgency is of prime importance.”
After several months of silence including reminders by email I wrote to the office of the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in November of 2020 noting the problem and that resulted in a reply from the Minister of Justice in February 2021, regretting the delay in his response, some procedural advice and that he is not able to provide legal advice to the public and offered advice on how to get legal advice from a lawyer.
I responded to his procedural concerns as the Minister had claimed that he was bound by the decision of the CJC by quoting from the Department of Justice website
“The Minister is not bound by the CJC’s recommendation; the option to seek a judge’s removal by Parliament exists whether or not the CJC recommends that the judge be removed.”
“If the question of removal is to be put before Parliament, it is the Minister who does so. It is open to the Minister to put the question to Parliament or to decline to do so. Like all acts of an Attorney General, the Minister’s discretion in that regard is constrained by the constitutional obligation to act in good faith, objectively, independently and with a view to safeguarding the public interest.”
I was compelled to attend Court several more times under threat of imprisonment and each time I requested that the case be dismissed due to an “abuse of process” however every time the judge refused to hear the matter in a further abuse of process, “maybe at trial” being the response.
At the Provincial Court of BC on July 16, 2021 I made a freedom of expression protest argument regarding my understanding of a claim of absolute and unreviewable power by the judiciary, including the reality that the process of appeal was procedurally flawed as Judges maintained a discretion to ignore the transcript. Judge Sicotte in that forum refused to allow me to ask the question of a crown employee regarding his opinion on the fairness and impartiality of such a tribunal, apparently the only perspective of importance is the judicial one and in their discretion can claim to speak for all Canadians, despite no mandate for that position, and once again a claim of unlimited unreviewable discretion for that personal opinion.
Using the Income Tax Act as a method of exposing abuses of the Rule of Law is a time honored method of protest used by Robin Hood, Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi, Women’s Tax Resistance, Jesus, Magna Carta, and the unfortunate results of the French & American Revolutions.
I pointed this out to in the Nelson Supreme Court along with argument for a writ of mandamus on the MOJ to properly resolve the issues before the court. I pointed out the public service that I was performing, the complete absence of a guilty mind and that none of the purposes of sentencing could be legitimately exercised by the court.
Crown has not disputed any of the facts except to claim that my life experiences are irrelevant. Crown has not responded to any requests for evidence, provided zero argument to defend the failure to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter. As a matter of law, claiming that my perspective is irrelevant and the only relevant perspective is the judicial one is using the incorrect perspective.
fundamental justice dictates that the “tribunal which adjudicates upon his rights must act fairly, in good faith, without bias, and in a judicial temper, and must give to him the opportunity adequately to state his case”. That a Judge would conduct a trial knowing that Crown was in breach of the Charter is an abuse of process and goes to trial fairness.
Crown misquotes me in their argument 19. claiming that I “only intended to advance argument about the constitutionality of the ITA”. It is obvious from the facts that this is not the case and my argument regarding this matter was solely to protect the security of my person from the threats of imprisonment which were clearly in the letter from the CRA, the Act of Parliament, the application of the law at the Provincial and Supreme Court and the failure of Crown to present any argument in response to the constitutional questions presented.
The matter of due diligence in the compliance with the law is not the only defense available in these administrative offences as stated in R v Pontes and Reference Re MVA contrary to the position of the Crown and the Court. “that he reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would render the act or ommission innocent.” Even if my belief of the facts are mistaken, it is reasonable that, if true, my protest regarding my belief that my legal rights had been effectively removed is correct.
“It has from time immemorial been part of our system of laws that the innocent not be punished.” “It is basic to any theory of punishment that the sentence imposed bear some relationship to the offence; it must be a “fit” sentence proportionate to the seriousness of the offence” My protest action utililzing the ITA is the most valid and appropriate method to communicate with the Court, Government and Parliament, given that all other methods of communication have been ignored or deleted. Citizens must have a safe method to communicate with their government. My protest actions are in the public interest and in the defence of the Charter and show a complete absence of a guilty mind. Punishment is not appropriate as it would not serve any of the legitimate purpose of sentencing and would bring about contempt for the administration of justice.
In regards to the concepts of strict and absolute liability offences and the constitutionality of the ITA there is obviously a great deal of confusion on the issue and almost no previous case law on the issue to the extent that Federal and Provincial Crown had no response to the constitutional question on the issue, Justice Sicotte had no idea but applied the law as it was written by Parliament. If judges dont know the law, if Crown doesnt respond to constitutional questions on the law, and crown provides “no comment” on the law, the law is declared by the court to be different to what Parliament has declared it to be, then it can hardly be said that I could possibly know the case to meet.
I prefer my laws made in Parliament and I read them the way any normal person would, including as judge sicotte did, the words that are written. I expect if there is a constitutional question before the court and it has a massive effect on the fairness of a trial that it be heard first and resolved prior to the commencement of a trial particularly where a man’s liberty is threatened. To avoid a question because it is difficult or a claim that the court is not superior enough to hear the matter should not allow one to just ignore it. This type of conduct demonstrates partiality of Judges and so is improper.
I presented those arguments before Justice Lyster but was ignored. What would a reasonable man or woman have done in a similar circumstance. Perhaps it would be helpful to examine the situation if it were a man’s voice that was preferred over a woman’s evidence of the transcript. There would be absolute moral outrage. That is a failure to apply the equal standard of the law on the basis of sex. The problem is exacerbated by the conflict of interest exposed as Justice Lyster was part of a team at LEAF Women’s Legal Group that played a pivotal role in the Canadian Judicial Council’s inquiry into the conduct of “why couldn’t you just keep your knees together” judge, Robin Camp. However when I present the evidence of a woman’s testimony being preferred over a man’s evidence, the transcript, and the CJC claiming that that is acceptable conduct for a judge – she refuses to even respond with argument or even a decision. From my perspective, it appears to be an obstruction of justice, or at the very least a clear demonstration of partiality on the basis of sex, which is a breach of the Charter.
Frankly given Justice Lyster’s background and her communications to the Media such as the interview with the Straight, where she said there is ‘a great deal of uncertainty’ about how human-rights cases will be dealt with in the future. ‘I think the public should be asking questions,’ Lyster stated. ‘What are the government’s intentions with respect to the future of the protection of human rights in this province? What mechanisms do they intend to have in place to ensure that people have access to justice in the form of human rights? I have no idea what the answers to these questions might be. But what I do know is those questions need to be asked because the things that I am seeing are disturbing to me.'”
Questions were asked in the Court on Dec 3rd, 2021 and the public perception is that because the facts of the case did not fit Justice Lyster’s world view she rejected them, or was directed to reject them, not on the basis of evidence but on the basis of ideology, either that women should be believed no matter what the evidence against them, or that the powers of lawyers and judges should never be questioned, both of which are contrary to the law, undemocratic and unconstitutional.
R v Red Hot Video (1985) BC Court of Appeal
“If true equality between male and female persons is to be achieved it would be quite wrong in my opinion to ignore the threat to equality resulting from the exposure to male audiences ( or female audiences in my case ) of the violent and degrading material described above. As I have said, such material has a tendency to make men ( women ) more tolerant of violence to women ( men ) and creates a social climate encouraging men ( women ) to act in a callous and discriminatory way toward women ( men )
On Appeal before Justice Lyster on Dec 3rd, 2021 I presented evidence regarding a failure in the rule of law throughout the legal system and by natural extension throughout the public service and a muzzling of all independent thought in the public service and the general public through the fear of the uncontrolled coercive powers of the judiciary.
After a 6 month delay Justice Lyster presented her oral reasons with her written reasons presented just prior to the appeal procedure closing, presumably to prevent the most obvious obstruction of justice conclusions.
Issues regarding the deletion of submissions to the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Justice were ignored as irrelevant. RCMP threats were ignored as irrelevant. Failure by the AG/MOJ to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter deemed irrelevant.
Ultimately the integrity of the judicial system is at stake and that is a matter that concerns all Canadians equally. We all want a judicial system that we can trust. But coercion is not trust. That issue is still unresolved, is being debated in provincial court due to the failure to resolve the issues before the Court is resulting in more abuse of process and confusion for provincial court judges, crown prosecutors and court staff.
It is fundamentally undemocratic to refuse to permit the review of judicial discretion by Parliament.
The precedent of Court journalist Christie Blachford has some relevancy here, “Let no good deed go unpunished.” as quoted in Federal Court regarding the CJC’s abusive treatment of Justice Smith.
Since Crown was provided two weeks notice and failed to respond except by letter to me that they would not be intervening at this stage and crown prosecutor at trial stating he has “no comment” and a Judge still ruling against my argument with precedent is abhorrent to any sense of fairness. The proper outcome would have to rule on the basis of evidence not belief. That is an improper use of discretion. The proper use of discretion is in good faith and in accordance with the law. From the perspective of the public that is a claim that a judge believes his word is the law and evidence is not a requirement. The fact that a Judge would conduct a trial knowing that Crown was in breach of the Charter is an abuse of process and goes to trial fairness.
No Canadian except with a specialized tax lawyer in tow would possibly be able to know the law in this regard because the law is absolutely hidden and apparently only available for tax lawyers and only after an appeal or two. How would anyone know the case against them under this regime?
In regards to the order for a mistrial that is clearly a continuation of the abuse of process. In provincial court judge Brown on August 10th, 2022 claims he must “follow orders” from the Supreme Court and ignore precedent from the SCC of Canada in Cobb regarding the protection from abuse of process even after acknowledging the validity of the argument. Why not when judicial discretion is unreviewable and unlimited then the decision to follow any precedent is at the discretion of the judge and can be easily ignored or arbitrarily or partially applied to favor lawyers which would increase the value of their services, in effect buying justice in the discretion of the judiciary, but since Judges are ex-lawyers it does place an extraordinary level of bias that the people of Canada naturally believe is unfair and undemocratic. Our perspective differs, vastly.
It is quite something to inadvertently or as a matter of unconscious bias to make an incorrect claim but to have the bias and illegality of the conduct brought to the attention of the Judiciary and have outright denial or refusal to examine the issue whatsoever is another matter entirely, and that involves the issue of intent which increases the criminal component of the conduct. The issue of wilfull blindness is particularly relevant to the issue at appeal. The competency of the judicial process to resolve this situation is obviously problematic because of the legal precedent that “no man or woman can be a judge in his own cause”. But as I mentioned in the BC Supreme Court this is the only method left available to me to restore rights that are constitutionally protected in the Charter under “fundamental justice” which is properly reviewable by Parliament according to the doctrine of the separation of powers which protects abuses of power.
It is admitted by Crown that the grounds of appeal involve questions of law. Crown submits that there is nothing of importance in these matters that apply to the general public beyond this case. Which is a curious position as Crown is refusing to respond to the enforcement procedure of the Charter which is an ongoing breach of the charter, affecting all Canadians. To claim that is a matter of no importance and does not apply beyond this case appears to the public to be a claim that Crown and the Judiciary are not bound by the Charter at all, because they can physically prevent any review of that discretion, however to do so is contrary to democratic principles and the constitution.
Ultimately the problem is one of perspective. In the eyes of the public it is obvious that Canadians cannot receive a fair and impartial trial whilst the crown is in breach of the Charter and refusing to allow its claim of unlimited and unreviewable discretion to be examined by the only body with authority to do so. However from the Crown and Judicial perspective which appear to coincide remarkably there are appears to be no facts that could ever constitute an abuse of process of the court or indicate a conflict of interest, or a breach of the charter, or misconduct by anyone from the Crown. It is clear that in a conflict over whose perspective should be considered, it is the public perspective and significantly the person most vulnerable, which would be me.
Vanguard Coatings v MNR “fair price” is equivilant to the minister of justice requirement to “protect the public” – who is to judge the discretion of the MOJ. It appears that it is the sole judgement of the Minister as of course the Judges are all going to rule that they are protecting the public, despite evidence to the contrary. “IF this forumlation be so decent and reasonable as the Minister’s counsels says it is, why, Parliament could provide that all canadians should subject their lives and livehoods to some chosen official who finds himself in as paramount a conflict of official interest as does the Minister of Nat Recenue when determining that taxpayers should really contribute more revcnue to the crown” same as protection of the public. Who reviews the discretion of the MOJ but the PM, whose office sent the problem to his Min of Pub Safety, an admission of the problem.
Pontes case “In these circumstances, to direct a new trial…would be unfair and unduly harsh”
Cobb “the right to protection against abuse of process”
Insisting that I attend a court, under a threat of imprisonment, that claims a discretion in regards to the best evidence that any Canadian could provide, is contrary to fundamental justice.
Claiming that my perspective is irrelevant and only the opinion of a judge has any bearing in this case is a refusal to respect the dignity of my person.
“In public regulation of this sort there is no such thing as absolute and untrammeled discretion” R v Roncarelli
The refusal to address the request for a writ of mandamus is a denial of a democratic right to access the only court with the authority to resolve the matter before this Court.
I would appeal any decision of the Court again until this issue is resolved. Canadians simply will not believe that there is any justification for judges claiming they can ignore the transcript to protect a laywer committing fraud. Like it or not, the CJC does create precedent. Historically the CJC claimed that their decisions were not subject to appeal, which suggests that the view was that the CJC was the highest court below Parliament however that view seems to have changed under the Federal Court case of Justice Smith in 2018 when that court labelled the CJC processes “abusive”
Failure regarding presumptive ceiling for trial delay Jordan Ruling
In regards to the Jordan ruling I do accept Crown’s submission that there were exceptional circumstances but to consider that those exceptional circumstances only affected Crown is absurd but unfortunately consistent with crowns perspective that my circumstances and experiences are irrelevant..Crown alleges that I was under an obligation to raise the issue at trial however in Woolsey (86) they state that “it was incumbent on both the judge and crown cousel to raise the issue” I lost two years of revenue and made that point in the provincial court. I didnt have a dime, I couldnt pay for accounting to complete anything.
There may have been court cancellations during this period but to claim that those closure contributed anything to the delay is not factually true as Crown had already stated that they were not available for the first trial date available. “only circumstances that are genuinely outside the Crown’s control and ability to remedy may furnish a sufficient excuse for the prolonged delay” Crown admits that No delays were attributable to defense and I did do everything in my power at all times to facilitate a speedy resolution to this matter. Crown has to prove additionally that they “cannot reasonably remedy the delays emanating from the circumstances once they arise” They have not done so.
The also appears to be a number of cases in the system casting doubt onto whether the closures by the court were justified in a free and democratic country.
This case was very complex from my perspective with a denial of all legal representation but for Crown it appears that the case is very simple, particularly when my perspective and experiences are deemed irrelevant and the Crown only had to proof two things both of which they were the only ones capable of furnishing the evidence. Given that circumstances the failure is sad. The culture of complacency is not the only culture in drastic need of repair. The legal system is undergoing an ethical collapse and the factors contributing to that involve money, a culture of fear and silence, a highly hierarchal structure, weak compliance boards, lots of conflicts, lots of innovations and a sense that the good that is done outweighs the wrong. Obviously I did not bring up the matter of the unreasonable delay at trial because that would hardly have served my protest purpose however it is now relevant and appropriate to examine the problem. I have been under threat to the security of my person for three years, since 2019 when Crown first contacted me threatening me with imprisonment and with every court appearance I lost the opportunity to contribute financially to the support of myself and my children. Combine that situation with my historical experience and it is clear that I have been subjected to almost 20 years of abuse. It is time for this to end, but if I have no alternative I will continue resisting for the rest of my life. Such is my concern for proper procedure and protections as it should be yours. Further delay does not create “public confidence in the administration of justice” and “leads to the community’s frustration with the judicial system and eventually to a feeling of contempt for court proceedings” (Morin/Jordan)
the declaration at the BC Supreme Court of a mistrial serves no useful purpose because the matter intended to bring before the court is before the court.
The facts in this case are so damning and the reality is that the legal system has known about the problem for years and years and have been just waiting for a disaster like this to manifest itself prior to attempting to resolve anything. Numerous constitutional and legal academics, lawyers and judges have communicated about the problem. The problem of SRL being a disadvantaged class subject to special section 15(2) treatment has been acknowledged by the legal community in the CJC statement of principles regarding SRL. My requests for a lawyer, legal advice, an amicus curae before the provincial court were all denied. My requests for legal assistance have been denied because of the facts involved in the case. That is a massive problem for the access to justice for me and every Canadian. If we cannot report crimes in the justice system and know that we will be protected then you have organized crime.
Since the issue is one of a constitutional crisis with a refusal to comply with the enforcement procedure of the Charter it is one of importance to all Canadians as it affects their rights to justice, to fairness in the conduct of police and a responsible ministerial government within the system of Parliamentary supremacy. The Charter promises fundamental justice and the checking of that is the duty of Parliament in their responsibility to provide peace, order and good government. The courts are obviously biased in the judging of their own conduct which is why we have a system of checks and balances in a parliamentary democracy.
The proper legal resolution has been laid out in the law and presented properly before Justice Lyster in regards to the request for the writ of mandamus. Ignoring constitutional violations extended into the executive of Government with the PM, MOJ and Minister of Public Safety all involved and compromising the integrity of everyone below them. The test is set out in Apotex as “on the balance of convenience” from the precedent it is acknowledged in plain english as being a fairly low bar. The fact that Justice Lyster refused to rule on the matter and leave it for the Appeal Court can only be seen as purposeful given the time frame available for her to make the decision and unfortunately compromises the perception of fairness in the judicial system as it is clearly demonstrating a bias toward lawyers preferring the complete absence of response from the AG’s office to my argument and precedent, the minister of justice who appointed her, and improperly protecting others in the legal system over the public which you owe a duty to protect in accordance with the law and that right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and promised in the Charter.
If a provincial court judge claims no discretion then every public servant who has significantly less discretion appears to be bound to follow orders even if they lead to human rights abuses or are obviously illegal as they are in this situation because the Crown is in breach of the Charter and no-one is saying a word. Not a word.
It is interesting how a government pay check, health and retirement benefits will affect people’s decision to stand for integrity and the protection of human rights or turn away, or worse. This is a very serious matter for the court to consider. How does the Court respond to criticisms of its conduct by those outside the legal system? It is tolerated by those within the system like JP Boyd, Jordan Furlong, former Governor General David Johnstone and many others including most recently the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court talking about mental health in the system because of the advesarial system. But what is dramatically missing from these comments is the voice of the public, those most affected by the conduct. I present actual victim impact statement of the results of criminal activity in the legal system and the response is to ignore it, deny it and threaten me because of the facts that I present threaten your world view of lawyers and judges being the paragon’s of virtue whose trust is unassailable and the protector of the weak and innocent, which clearly is not the case.
I do not consent to being governed without the protections of the Constitution of Canada.
As women say emphatically in cases of sexual assault. No means No. I completely agree. Legal abuse is an assault and a betrayal of the public trust. The proper resolution for this matter is straightforward and is necessary to restore the public trust. There is no other just resolution for this matter possible. I urge you to act quickly and decisively.
I’ll leave you with this quote from Elizabeth May speaking in the house regarding the recently proposed amendments to the judges act which all lawyers in the house seemed to consider the perfect solution and requiring no debate and encouraged all members to vote immediately to pass.
“We spent hours trying to figure out the…judge’s decision. It made no sense to us…our professor asked, “Is it permissible to ask if the judge was bribed?” The judge was, which is why the decision made no sense, and he was thrown off the bench for it”
Elizabeth May, a lawyer, and former leader of Green Party
In order for leave to be granted, the applicant must show that i) the ground of appeal involves a question of law alone ii) the issue is one of importance and iii) there is sufficient merit in the proposed appeal in that it has a reasonable possibility of success. The overriding consideration in the exercise of the discretion to grant or refuse leave to appeal is the interests of justice. Appeal must demonstrate exceptional circumstance as appeals should be granted sparingly.
I believe that I have established the grounds for a right to appeal on the questions of law before the court.
In response to Justice Newbury’s request for further information I provided this.
Re: CA48339 Hearing for right to appeal held on August 30th, 2021
September 5th, 2022
Thank you for your time and consideration. I have attached the information that you requested on August 30th, 2021
- Letter from Canadian Judicial Council dated 28th August 2007
- Citations for the caselaw quoted.
“It has from time immemorial been part of our system of laws that the innocent not be punished”
“It is basic to any theory of punishment that the sentence imposed bear some relationship to the offence; it must be a ‘fit’ sentence proportionate to the seriousness of the offence”
Re BC Motor Vehicle SCC
“The right to protection against abuse of process” acknowledged as a right of every citizen.
United States of America v. Cobb,  1 S.C.R. 587, 2001 SCC 19
“that he reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts, which, if true, would render the omission innocent”
R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City),  2 S.C.R. 1299
“In these circumstance, to direct a new trial….would be unfair and unduly harsh”
R. v. Pontes  3 S.C.R. 44
“If true equality between male and female persons is to be achieved it would be quite wrong in my opinion to ignore the threat to equality resulting from the exposure to male audiences of the violent and degrading material descibed above. As I have said, such material has a tendency to make men more tolerant of violence to women and creates a social climate encouraging men to act in a callous and discriminatory way toward women”
(swap the genders for this case)
R v. Red Hot Video (1985) BC Court of Appeal
“In public regulation of this sort there is no such thing as absolute and untrammeled discretion”
R v Roncarelli  S.C.R. 121
“If this formulation be so decent and reasonable as the Minister’s counsels says it is, why, Parliament could provide that all Canadians should subject their lives and livelihoods to some chosen official who finds himself in as paramount a conflict of interest as does the Minister of National Revenue when determining that taxpayers should really contribute more revenue to the Crown”
Vanguard Coatings v MNR  2 C.T.C. 431
“leads to the community’s frustration with the judicial system and eventually to a feeling of contempt for court proceedings”
R v Askov,  2 S.C.R. 1199
“It was incumbent on both the judge and crown counsel to raise the issue”
R v Woolsey 2021 BCCA 439 para 86 re Jordan delay
“Only circumstances that are genuinely outside the Crown’s control and ability to remedy may furnish a sufficient excuse for the prolonged delay”
“Cannot reasonably remedy the delays emanating from the circumstances once they arise”
R v Jordan  1 SCR 631
- Transcript from Provincial Court hearing on August 10th, 2022 to set a date for Justice Lyster’s order of mistrial. ( essentially demonstrating the acknowledgement by the Court of my argument regarding a continuation of an abuse of process as an abuse of process )
On 27th September I received a phone call from the BC Court of Appeal notifying me that there would be a decision posted to their website on 29th September 2022. Of course the Judge denied me a right to appeal. Now you be the judge. Do Canadians receive a fair and impartial trial? in accordance to “fundamental justice”? When a lawyer commits a crime and the system closes ranks to protect “one of their own” then I believe that the evidence before you is clear as we all know inherently from our tribal background. We protect our tribe, which for Judges is themselves and lawyers and their system, at the expense of the public. In their obviously biased opinion they would deny any request. Would you report a member of your family for protecting another member of your family committing a crime? Probably not, which is why we all fail at the rule of law. But we are the citizens and the judiciary has a special duty and extraordinary powers over us, which is why we have the right and the responsibility to request a check on their powers. The question which prosecutors of the Crown ask, if you have nothing to hide then why dont you come down to the station and we can talk about it, or in the court, which is of course, fair and impartial, even when it isnt because we say so and our word is the law.
Commentary on Justice Newbury’s decision. Most people will only read the judge’s decision and accept and assume that it is a fair summary of the facts and the legal arguments and is correct or it would have been appealed. Those with more familiarity with the process know that Judges take the opportunity to re-write the facts, cherry pick the evidence and the law knowing that we almost never examine the evidence presented by the parties themselves. Judicial conduct, as Judges would like to perceive it, becomes merely, were they polite whilst they stabbed you in the back? Then they can claim that in their defense that in an adversarial system there are always winners and losers and the losers always feel ignored and the winners vindicated. In a Democracy the State, lawyers and judges are the greatest threat to the personal freedoms of the public. Since historically the State has seen fit to order it’s men to fight, kill and die on their orders, or to be imprisoned, or shot for refusal, or even for questioning those orders we know that men have no rights. “Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die” The Charge of the Light Brigade, Tennyson.
The question becomes, who cares about men and fathers? Well, their parents care, their children care, their current partners care and their community cares, the people that want services from men care ( a little less perhaps since an abused man will work for less, desperation works that way, to a point. Men are committing suicide at a rate of 4-5 times that of women and there are no support systems for men, unless they pay. It’s capitalism after all.