Appeal at Nelson Supreme Court

APPEAL SUMMARY – Dec 3rd. Nelson. BC Supreme Court. Canada

Video of the text below.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. Your Honor. Crown Counsel, court reporter and other court staff. Thank you to the members of the public who have attended to stand witness. I appreciate all of your time. I see value in this conversation.

Based on the evidence presented before the court in Nakusp on July 16th 2021

Why didnt Judge Sicotte provide me with the due diligence defence available in a strict liability offence such as the ITA?

The answer to that question is very revealing.

The ITA passed by parliament is an absolute liability offence, there is no due diligence defence, and it is unconstitutional as this court has found in similar cases.

The provincial court not providing me with the judge-made due diligence defense, that is provided for clients with IT lawyers, says a great deal about this courts application of fairness and partiality when dealing with unrepresented litigants, which enforces a belief that lawyers do result in the protection of your rights and that not having a lawyer will result in loss of your rights.

However my understanding is that I have presented a very valid freedom of expression defence, regarding the reporting of criminal activity and breaches of statutory duties within the entire legal system that should result in resolution of this matter today to Not Guilty and the undertaking of investigations into this matter. It is dissapointing of course that this was the only method of communication left available to me.
I think it is important to take as many positive steps as soon as possible. Delaying or denying is helping no-one.
If Crown disagrees then they can appeal.
There is an obvious inherent bias in the crown prosecution, their most senior officer is currently not responding to a charter complaint and their governing body is claiming that lawyers have no duty to protect the public and are above the law and there are no ethics and no trust in their institution at all.

What larger charter breach can there be than refusing to respond to a charter complaint. Without enforcement of the enforcement procedures, no law has any power.

There is all the evidence here to issue an order for a writ of mandamus on the Minster of Justice to present this matter before Parliament as the only court of competent jurisidiction to resolve the issues before the court.
Parliament does also share a responsibility with this justice system to resolve this matter fully and take the personal and collective responsibility that they owe to me and Canada.

I do understand the bias for everyone who works for the government regarding the ITA as it controls much of the revenue for government and everyone here desperately wants to keep the threat of imprisonment available to the CRA to enforce democracy so to speak, which in some ways, I also understand, but can you understand how being competlled to attend court before a judge with the discretion to ignore all evidence and punish me with up to 7 years imprisonment and up to $200,000 in fines felt like, from my perspective?
The actual threats and abuse of processes at the RCMP are disturbing to say the least, but for many, not a surprise.
The weaponization of the family law system by lawyers in Canada is a major problem for children in Canada and the lack of proper procedures and protections is a failure in the administration of justice and is resulting in the abuse of hundreds of thousands of Canadians leading to suicides, drug and alcohol abuse, poverty and mental health issues which compromise the integrity of our society.
I am the unwilling messenger here doing my duty as a Canadian.

I am simply going to provide my perspective. I wont presume to present the law as it has been made perfectly clear to me, that only you, really know the law, and that I do not, as I am not a lawyer or a judge.
However If you have questions I would be available as a witness and to provide any other assistance however I should be paid for service in this matter. That is only fair and equal before the law.
I shouldnt have to be doing this job as those that have been paid to do this job have failed to do so. That is really the problem here.
The administration of justice needs correction but there is also the potential for Canada to provide leadership to the world. We could lead judicial reform as the current system is rooted in several thousand years of abuse and oppression. We can do better. We should always keep an open mind, let go of attachments, face our fears, and do the right thing.

Thank you for bearing witness. I do appreciate the difficulty of this situation. I am attempting to do everything in my powers to resolve this professionally and correctly.

I believe that I have argument that you should be recused and that all judges should be recused in this matter. The examination of the issue of fundamental justice might compromise the abililty of all involved here to provide me with a fair and impartial trial. The Judicial council decided that Judges have a discretion to accept or reject the transcript and refused to permit that discretion to be reviewed. Unfortunately that makes this appeal arbitrary and unreviewable discretion is contrary to fundamental justice and democracy. It is however irrelevant now, as I simply need your help to move this process forward, in order to be afforded any legal rights. I will accept your word that you will provide me a fair and impartial trial. As you can imagine this has been a very difficult thing for me to do and yes I do feel threatened all the time. In 2005 I was accused of contempt of court twice. The second time was when I was completely broke as a result of court orders and the first time occurred after telling a judge I would be unavailable on the day, was ordered “to attend court at 10am to set a date for a hearing. I did turn up at 10am and registrar did tell that to Justice McKewan who put a warrant out for my arrest as I had to depart to pick up 12 skiers 30 kilometers from anywhere with only me to help them. Justice McKewan did later understood that something was wrong with my case and took over case management, with my approval, so I was very surprised at trial when Justice Shaw attended. I spent a day in jail for that failing.
I think we all understand that what I am proposing in my argument is that there is a complete failure throughout the legal system of all accountability. Not once, was the right thing to be done, done. The reporting of crimes lead to retribution. Of course I have fear. Judge Sicotte could have, in his discretion, under the ITA sentenced me to 7 years prison and about 200,000 in fines. That’s the risk that was forced upon me to report a crime in the justice system. Claiming that reporting a lawyer for fraud on the court, and providing the transcript, could be refuted, by calling the Plaintiff to the stand, and requesting that she perjure herself, to protect her lawyer, and preferring that, to the transcript, is abhorrent, to any sense of justice. In provincial court after being promised a fair and impartial trial and that any breaches of the charter would be addressed. The court then attempted to ignore a constitutional question and subsequently claimed that their word was the law despite the evidence and the complete lack of evidence and argument from the crown. My evidence isnt good enough. I will never know the law as well as a Judge. My rights to security of the person are being threatened by being here. I was threatened that If I dont attend court you will imprison me and if I do attend you will imprison me. My right to legal advice and even my requests for food to make it to trial are denied. What hope do I have here? Chief Justice Pigeon acting for the Canadian Judicial Council dismissed Judge Shaw’s complaint without proper procedure. The Council refused to reconsider their decision, on several occassions, ultimately leading Norman Sabourin, lead counsel at the Judicial Council writing to me, that my requests were an abusive of process and refused to bring the matter to the attention of either the Minister of Justice or Parliament.
The claim that Parliament cannot review judicial discretion as not being an element of conduct, is incorrect. Judge Shaw ruled based on his discretion in 1999, that the law on child pornography was unconstitutional. He also ruled in a previous case that being one minute late in filing a document was fatal. In my case Judge Shaw ruled that he could protect a lawyer committing fraud on the court, by personally calling up the witness, and requesting that she perjure herself. Those are all elements of discretion. Are you seriously suggesting that Parliament can not dismiss a judge who administers his discretion arbitrarily? Is discretion not an element of conduct, is it not part of good behaviour. Is it not part of Parliaments role to rule for the peace, order and good government. Justice Pigeon claiming that judicial discretion was not reviewable is unconstitutional. I’m not sure who came up the concept of unreviewable discretion at the CJC but that decision should be reviewed for correctness. The whole matter of the mechanism of the examination and discipline of federal judges requires significantly more efforts to correct than the current amendments propose.
Historically the Minister of Justice has denied that there was any further avenue within the review of judicial conduct except to go back to the CJC. Obviously my understanding of the law has expanded from that point and the “abusive” nature of the CJC has been examined in more detail before the courts in the Justice Smith more recently. I did share my experience with the Canadian National Judicial Institute and they kindly acknowledged my correspondence but declined to respond further. The failure of the MOJ to respond to a charter complaint to bring the matter before Parliament is why we are here today. To right a wrong. That is the function of the justice system. You simply cannot have it on the official record at the Canadian Judicial Council that Judges have a right to ignore all the evidence that any Canadian could provide. You are in the position of providing trust, but the evidence is contrary and it is killing people, destroying lives, bankrupting the people who you are supposed to be serving. We need to find solutions, not denial. “The truth is that, in a system based on the rule of law, unfettered governmental discretion is a contradiction in terms.” Discretion necessarily implies good faith in discharging public duty. Fraud and corruption are always implied as exceptions.

Lawyers, BC Law Society and Crown Prosecution Conflict of Interest and lack of legal advice.

When I reported crimes to the BC Law Society involving lawyers not complying with court orders to provide trust account statements, falsifying and redacting documents to obstruct justice and collusion. Written reasons were refused in conflict with their governing document the Law Society Act. The law society requested the Plaintiff’s lawyer, Greg Stacey provide them his trust account statements but then refused to reveal the contents to me. I requested from Stuart Cameron by letter an explanation of how the law society was complying with their statutory duty to protect the public but received no further communication and I forwarded the matter on to the BC Ombudsman office. After a year of attempts to get the law society to provide written reasons the Ombudsman abandoned the investigation. Prior to being submitted to the discipline committee the senior benchers, whom I believe the AG of BC is a member, decided that on the basis of the evidence in front of them that there was insufficient evidence. Which is true, because the law society had removed all the incriminating evidence from the file and informed me by letter of the evidence that was presented. That conduct puts the integrity of the monopoly on the services provided by membership in the law society at risk. The refusal of lawyers to protect my charter rights to a lawyer is a confirmation of the understanding of the problem with the letter from the judicial counsel. The failure to provide my right to legal representation, by lawyers was held to be of little importance, as if the inclusion of a Right in the Charter is the same as providing the practical application of that right is a mistake.

The crown prosecutor has a conflict of interest in this matter, but unfortunately has refused to admit that. I am compelled to accept that as the only way to move this process forward effeciently. My request for a special prosecutor due to the involvement of political actors was not considered, nor was my request for proper disclosure of a conflict of interest to a superior by the crown prosecution. All requests for evidence have been denied. That’s a pretty bad start, but not a surprise as every other attempt to communicate with the legal institutions prior to attending court were ignored. Argument for the use of Alternate Dispute Resolution methods, as well as offers to assist in the provision of evidence to secure prosecution of other much more significant offenders was ignored completely. Letters to the AG’s office and Minister of Justice were ignored including a charter of rights complaint to have the matter heard by Parliament properly served by registered mail to the deputy attorney general;s office as required under law. The MOJ’s office still has not provided a response to the charter complaint but crown is relying on a defence hidden somewhere in the appeal document. The Minister of Justice is currently not complying with our governing document and failing to respect my right to the reporting mechanism of the charter, which is a crime, of obstruction of justice. I reported the problem to the PM’s office along with allegations of improper tampering with the transcripts and the matter was referred back to David Lametti who finally replied and recommended that I hire a lawyer in private practice and that he does provide legal advice to the public. The Minister further claimed improperly that he had no duty to intervene in the process of the Canadian Judicial Council, which is a false statement, I believe designed to obscure the truth.
I sought legal advice on the matter no numerous occasions from the start when I reported the crimes immediately after the trial to the lawyer representing my parents interests he dismissed the matter as being not worth pursuing which William Wescott, “my lawyer” also confirmed, including that there were “significant downsides” for me on appeal. Mr Westcott is currently employed as a lawyer for the provincial crown and served me with the disclosure documents at the prelimary hearing in Nakusp. When I showed that letter from the Judicial Council to any lawyer they refused further contact with me, one criminal lawyer wrote “I will not represent you now or ever”. Adam Dodeck, the constitutional academic wrote to me offering simply “I have no experience in the matter. Good luck”. I have however been very fortunate to have internet access and the Ministry of Justice has published the law. There is also numerous other resources published by private parties which have been very helpful. Historical context such as the Magna Carta, The French Revolution, the American War of Independence and the memoirs of Beverly Mclachlin, David Johnston, as well as peace activists such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Bob Marley, Thich Nhat Than, and Jesus Christ have also been very instructive. The BC Court of Appeal verdict in Merkel that was handed down on the 29th of November was illuminating reading as well.

The Crown Prosecution’s solution seems to be, if we just ignore the situation and hope it goes away then we wont have to deal with it. Or worse, let’s just ignore my perspective completely and hold that my perspective has no value whatsoever in this matter. That outlook will ultimately bring about the disrespect for the institutions that we value so highly. I fail to see how I can possibly “know the case against me” or have a “fair and impartial trial” if Judges can plant evidence at trial, all my requests for evidence be denied, my perspective and evidence may be ignored and my freedom of expression right are limited by the needs of the court staff to have lunch as occurred in Nakusp. But when I requested food just to make it to trial I was denied. Beverly stated in the preamble to David Johnston’s book on Trust “Justice shouldn’t be some sort of abstract principle. It shouldn’t be there just for the well heeled and corporations and that kind of thing. It ought to be there for ordinary Canadians.”
The last month researching this case has been an extraordinary experience for me. I took the opportunity to read the law on the matter, research alternate legal systems, touched into buddhism, whistlerblowers and the quest for equal rights throughout history. I watched some incredible movies on these issues like Ghandi, On the basis of Sex with Ruth Baden, Ginsburg, Roots ( I remember watching as a teenager ), The trial of the Chicago 7, Denial, First Knight, Robin Hood and of course when my children were younger we loved the Pixar classic “A bug’s life”. The physical forced exile and restriction of my participation in society by the removal of my drivers licence and passport and finances allowed me to spend quality time with my children, do some gardening, and ride my bike in this beautiful part of the world. I am very thankful for the support of my physical and social media community in many many ways.

Of course my favorite movie quote, because it so perfectly reflects the situation in my story is from John Grisham’s book “the rainmaker” about the insurance company that targeted low income people, and denied all claims. Killing a child that would otherwise have been saved.
“Every lawyer, at least once in every case, feels himself crossing a line that he doesn’t really mean to cross… it just happens… And if you cross it enough times it disappears forever. And then you’re nothin but another lawyer joke. Just another shark in the dirty water.”


The crown prosecutor tells me that the proper method of reporting a crime is to the RCMP. I reported criminal activity on many, many occasions. as Beverly stated in the preamble to David Johnston’s book on Trust as Beverly stated in the preamble to David Johnston’s book on Trust as Beverly stated in the preamble to David Johnston’s book on Trust. When I was removed from my home in 2005 and a sleeping bag placed on the floor of a 20×20 apartment I requested and was denied a rug from my home for the floor. I attended my home and removed it. She called her lawyer, who told her to call the police which she did as they screamed up the road at high speed within a couple minutes. I explained the situation and everyone agreed that it was reasonable. However over the next two years I was subjected to a terror campaign of break and entry at my prison cell apartment, and at my retail business forcing me to close it down abruptly, Anything that I left remotely unsecured disappeared, prior to trial my apartment was raided for the last time coordinated by communication between the two lawyers and without my consent they co-ordinated a locksmith to open my apartment and empty it, including the insurance papers which they placed into the court file to provide the judge with an excuse to claim that I would receive insurance for all losses except for the fact that my ex called the insurance office and shifted the coverage around so that I could not although she had resigned from the company. The insurance office denied my claim. Since I had no money and no trust in the legal system that was the end of the matter. At the conclusion of the trial when I inspected the court file presented to Judge Shaw and noted that almost all documents had been removed or heavily redacted, in particular removing any mention of the failure of Greg Stacey to comply with a court order to provide monthly trust account statements. I communicated directly with both lawyers in regards to that breach although Mr Stacey did not like me doing so and objected to it, because I had counsel. I reported the obstruction of justice to the police in person and ultimately was told that I was paranoid or delusional and they refused to take any action. On several other occassions when I had cause to report crimes within the legal system I just got zero response except if I made it vague enough at the start to initiate a conversation which I did to the anti-corruption squad of the RCMP when I reported the minister of justice for obstruction of justice. The RCMP National Division Intake Unit Constable Webster responded and informed me that their mandate is to safeguard and investigate significant threats to Canada’s political, economic and social integrity. And that they investigate complaints concerning federally elected members of parliament. However when I reported that the Minister of Justice was failing to respond to a charter complaint to have judicial conduct examined by Parliament and provided them a copy of my charter complaint they told me “any future communications…unless solicited….will not be reviewed and will be destroyed”. I was not satisfied and made a complaint to the civilian review and complaints commission. 3 days ago I received the reply that in their discretion they claim it is a frivolous and vexatious argument and they would not be responding. There was no signature and the only person’s name on their website is chairperson Michelaine Lahaie. I think it important for this court to rule on the legality of that discretion. In March 2020 I was served at my home with the information’s before this court by Constable Smith. I did take the opportunity to once again report the crimes in the legal system however he laughed at me and in the next three months I was placed in handcuffs in the back of his cruiser outside of my home by force even though I stated I was concerned for my safety and requested to stay in the public view and requested reasons for my arrest. My requests for a lawyer were denied. The reason provided for the arrest was “making a false statement”. I tried to attend trial on the matter but provincial crown counsel in Nelson Julian Dudley adjourned the matter by letter postmarked the day of the hearing but backdated two weeks and I was denied my right to a hearing on the matter. I requested but did not receive from the crown prosecutor the GPS records of the RCMP helicopter that circled five times over my house on Easter Monday of 2021 at an elevation of less than 1000 ft. I completely understand the actions as efforts of intimidation. I fully understand the lack of investigation as protection by the executive arm of government of the conduct of the executive and judiciary contrary to the rule of law.

Due to the fact that federal judges through the CJC claim that they have a right to disregard the transcript the actions of every government department is arbitrary as my right of appeal is subject to that unbounded discretion. As I have no meaningful right to appeal from a decision in an audit before the CRA, I understand it correctly as being arbitrary, and will not be subject to that abuse. I will stand my ground on that issue forever until this issue is resolved. Denial of that understanding is not going to be helpful.

Ruling on Voir Dire
The Judge ruled that Crown proved voluntariness in my participation as being proven beyond a reasonable doubt ignoring all of my arguments regarding the involuntariness of every aspect of this proceeding from the the threat of imprisonment in the initial contact letter from the CRA, to the structure of the absolute liability offence of the ITA. Section 238 is exactly worded the way it is, because that is exactly how Parliament intended it to be. Combined with the judicial discretion claimed by the CJC the whole procedure is abusive. I do wish to express my appreciation for the compassion that Judge Sicotte displayed in his partial resolution of the matter, within his jurisdiction and discretion.

Income Tax Act

In regards to the constitutionality of the income tax act. There was no defence offered to my argument at trial and yet my argument ultimately failed because the Judge claimed he just knew the law, but could not point to any law and crown prosecution now admits that the constitutionality of s 238 has never been checked. I was confused initially why, at trial the Judge would have, at trial, skipped over the constitutional question of the ITA which was listed in the constitutional question first but instead read in the constitutionality of the MOJ failing to comply with the Charter which was listed at the bottom of the page. The Judge claimed that he had not been provided that and delayed that argument several times until it became impossible to avoid. I had only discovered the existence of the idea of testing constitutionality and the concept of strict and absolute liability 3 weeks before trial as I became increasingly concerned with the prospect of facing a court that had a discretion to imprison me for up to 7 years and penalize me with several hundred thousand dollars in fines. Based on my prior experiences I feel like I was correctly concerned about a possible denial of my rights and the possibility of retribution. I have done more research on the matter now and understand the problem in greater depth. We all know that s 238 (1) of the income tax act is an absolute liability offence and the Government would very much like to keep it that way and would very much like to keep the punishment stick of imprisonment in existence, despite the fact that similar Acts of Parliament have been declared unconstitutional. Absolute liability is strict liability with no due diligence defence available. In my research I found lawyers websites that claimed exactly that and also declared that in order to resolve that conflict the so called “judge made law” defence has been provided, if you are represented by a lawyer, and the lawyers websites make it very clear that without a lawyer, your rights may not be respected. Which in this case is true. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy created by the inherent bias of judges in order to justify the representation of lawyers. I was denied legal representation here because of my prior experiences and the incorrect responses of those involved. A right of due diligence was not provided to me by Judge Sicotte explicitly complying with the ITA as it is written. There are other portions of the ITA which do explicitly provide the due diligence defence and are strict liability offences. The judge made law “precedent” was not applied in my case in an unequal application of the law. The constitutionality of the ITA s 238 was not checked correctly according to law and the reason is undeniably the bias of the Court to control the purse strings of the collection of taxes that contribute to your wages, but denying me even a dime of that money in my unpaid efforts to protect the charter of rights from human rights abuses that the United Nations have warned us about and are the entire purpose of the Charter of Rights, to be a constitution, a governing agreement, between the public and our representatives and public servants, who serve the public. I made every possible effort to comply with the law given my circumstances but I witnessed a failure in the rule of law at every turn by those in the executive and judiciary, public service and parliament in a blindness to hold onto powers, that are contrary to the law. The correct legal response for Judge Sicotte at the Provincial Court given the evidence before the court was to rule that the ITA s 238 was unconstitutional and then Crown could amend at Parliament or appeal to this court.

The Personal Damage

at the conclusion of the divorce I spent several years with severe post traumatic stress syndrome. I experienced obviously severe depression with the loss of all of my legal rights and financial stability.
I spent the entire profits for three years well over $100,000 cleaning up a deisel spill caused during the divorce, placing it all on a multititude of credit cards, to do the right thing which was to clean up the mess and not to just pass the responsibility to a completely innocent party.

At the time I was also suffering a broken leg from a logging accident and lost 3 years of work. WCB Inspectors came to visit me personally at my home within a week of the accident but failed to inform me that they were not there to help me at all, they were there to investigate if my bankrupt company that I was working for, had breached the WCB Act. I received exactly zero benefits.
Obviously the impacts upon me were also very much responsible for the ending of the relationship with my children’s mother. It is very unfortunate that she is currently attempting to abuse me through the legal system with complete support from lawyers and judges as all the evidence has been placed before all concerned. It is an unfortunate part of the human experience that people are drawn to power for the purposes of exploiting and abuse. Particularly those with particular knowledge or in a position of trust over another. We all know this to be wrong. This matter must be resolved impartially, my security and the security of my children must be assured. I should not have to live in fear that my children’s rights to their father might be abused further.

During the devastation in the tourism industry which is my financial lifeblood I have received exactly zero CERB benefits.
My requests for assistance have been repeatedly met with denial and hostility. As if my requesting help was offensive.

Family Law Matter.
The Crown Prosecution claims that this matter is irrelevant in this case. Crown believes mistakenly that everything that I believe is wrong and that only their perspective is correct. I disagree. To claim that I should attend a court to dispute a child custody order and child maintenance order in the face of the evidence before this court is abusive. The lawyer for the Plaintiff, Marta Brus and the lawyer I retained, NAME know the primary facts of this case but refuse to deal with the issues. Ms Marta Brus made claim to the court that I should be punished for holding my opinion and sought and received that punishment upon me without serving me, and without providing me an opportunity to speak in my defence, nor did they attempt to reconcile any differences by mediation in good faith as required by the separation agreement signed by both parties, and despite my offers to mediate on any issue. The lawyer that I retained I provided argument for the problem but he refused to represent the interests of his client categorically. Insisting that I attend a court the judges of which claim a discretion to ignore everything that I present with lawyers whose law society, claim they are not bound by any law, and protected in that failure by the Attorney Generals of the province of BC and Canada and the Minister of Justice, is abusive. I will not subject myself willingly to that abuse. The reasons that the mother of my children bypassed our seperation agreement requirement for mediation and ran to court is obviously because she understood, quite correctly, according to the evidence, that she had more power in that venue. That in itself is a problem. I will not subject my children to that abuse. My boys spent 4 months denied access to their father, by their mother, who was empowered and encouraged in that abusive conduct, with the full knowledge of the abuse that I have suffered through in the court system. The restriction to my access to my children was enforced by the school in an mistake of law as to the difference between primary care and sole custody. At this time the custody issue is practically resolved except for the existence of a court order. The issue of resolution of child support is not resolvable at this time, although there is sufficient evidence to realize that there are significant problems that affects the fairness of the process.
I do not know if the bias displayed by Mr Shaw at trial in 2006 was in the incorrect protection of a lawyer or the partiality to the Plaintiff or the partiality to a woman but I do know that it is wrong. My children know that it is wrong. Every Canadian knows that it is wrong. My boys understand the problem in the same way that they know they would not play soccer with an umpire that was obviously biased. My children understand that 80% of custody disputes end up with the mother and they have no interest in that occurring. I dont talk much more than that with my boys about this matter but it has affected us deeply. Unfortunately it is too late for the boy of my first marriage who I met at 2 years old until the legal system destroyed that relationship, the child did not speak to his mother for over a year. I provided unconditional love to that child, almost as my own. The family law system is categorically failing in its role to provide the best interests of the child and that failure is well documented and I do not need to labor over the details here. This matter also requires examination by Parliament, to comply with their duty to provide Peace, Order and Good Government. I do understand the challenge of administering the family law act and there are problems with the constitutionality and structure of that act which also require the attention of Parliament. Failing to do so is placing the profits of lawyers above the best interests of the child, which again, is wrong. At this time I am being called to the Nakusp Court on January 22nd 2022 with a demand to provide documents to the FMEP under penalty of imprisonment once again and I will be compelled to make this same argument despite the office of the FMEP all the way up to the BC AG David Eby being fully informed of the problem. I point out the facts that are not in dispute in the seperation agreement which fully sets out my assets and liabilities. I cant do better than the facts that are agreed upon. Although there is a problem with an imbalance of power in this matter as I discussed with the lawyer who drew up the separation agreement. In mediation power imbalances are a factor that are addressed, but in my experience imbalances of power within the legal system, are irrelevant, because they favor the interests of lawyers. Obviously there is a power imbalance. Unfortunately Greg Stacey was retained as the independant legal advisor on the separation agreement, although I did refuse to sign any document with his name on it, the mother of my children seems to think it important to keep attaching his name to the separation agreement.
My driver’s licence was removed but they have returned it now after over a year but I still have not had my passport returned. I have explained the entire situation to those involved including the passport office but have received no response, or the advice to hire a lawyer and we do not provide legal advice to the public. The problem that this situation represents is certainly not specific to me. The mechanisms of the family law act have been weaponized as a tool of abuse, rather than a tool of justice.
I feel like I am being extorted.
My father is turning 87 years old this spring and I want very much, God willing to see him again, and of course I want my children to come with me for a visit as my father is too old now to travel from Australia. I need my passport returned so that I can return to Canada, with my children, and not be denied entry to my birthcountry, and be a father to my children.

My experience of Judging
I have a great deal of personal experience in the act of judging. I am responsible for people’s lives in the course of my job as a backcountry ski guide. Twenty years ago I also rented the avalanche equipment to the party with Justin Trudeau’s brother when he drowned in Kokanee Lake in very tragic circumstances. I personally contributed funds to the Trudeau foundation for the construction of the Kokanee Glacier Chalet. I have taught and guided thousands of people backcountry skiing over the last twenty five years. I have almost zero formal qualifications for that role and am not employable anywhere else than to be self employed in my profession. I examine my conflict of interest as part of my job every moment. I examine a vast number of factors contributing to the safety of my clients and am very proud of my safety record. I care about my clients. The money that I receive in payment for the services is thanks but I do not do a better job if I am paid more, or if I am tipped. I do the best job that I can do for everyone regardless. My clients safety is my number one concern at all times, and I do that by examining the evidence before me as well as understanding that I dont know everything and to take proper precautions knowing that my clients want an outstanding experience. I deliver that by putting my clients first, not by doing what they want me to do, but by doing the right thing to the best of my ability in complete humility and service. It has been an honor for me and has brought much joy to many, many people. We need more love in this world..
My father was one of the scientist that discovered the cumulative effects of pollution on the mercury levels of fish in the Great Lakes that resulted in the shut down of the fisheries because of immediate health concerns. My mother once dined with the queen of england, our monarch and invited because of my mothers voluntary service to the community. My first personal experience with corruption was crossing the border from Guatemala to mexico when I was 18 travelling on less than $10 a day. A border guard wanted me to bribe him, so that as he said, he wouldnt find drugs in my bags. I declined his offer.
25 years ago as I was entering professional development in the ski industry there were two major accidents in the backcountry ski industry and I witnessed how protection of membership in a professional association works and I accepted that operating outside of a professional association can result in a higher standard of care and my understanding of how mutual self protection works. There is an incredible difference however, between making an error, and purposefully breaking the law, particularly by those entrusted at the highest level and with the care of the public as their duties.

My efforts to communicate with Parliament.
I do understand the problem facing Canada in the form described in the book“Why Nations Fail” regarding political and legal institutions which fail to apply te rule of law and tend towards dictatorships and abuses of power when the extractive nature of the administration becomes intolerable to an abusive degree resulting in their inevitable failure. Richard Wagner and Beverley McLachlin have both acknowedged this reality. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court states“Canadians have built a democratic system that truly works. It works so well that we often dont even notice it. It’s like Oxygen in the air, necessary for life, but not something we necessarily think about until it isnt there anymore. By which point, of course, it’s too late. We cant take what we’ve built for granted. Our nation and our institutions are strong because Canadians continue to have confidence in them. Im not saying all of what we’ve worked for will disapear. But it can. Other countries know this very well. Their citizens once thought, it can’t happen here. It cant, until it does. We live in troubled times.” If the rule of law is not applied then we run the very real risk of creating the disasters that the preamble to the UN Declaration of Human Rights warns us of. I was a child in Kenya in 1974 when Idi Amin was in Uganda. I saw Rhodesia in all its glory before the coming to power of Robert Mugawbe. I did my first year of law school in Canberra in Australia at the steps of the High Court when Justice Lionel Murphy was being indicted on charges of perverting the course of justice. Attempting to influence a court case involving a lawyer. I understand the principles involved as we all do here. Everyone does, from my children under the age of 10, to every Canadian that I talk to on the street. They say my case sounds like what we hear about Russia, or China, or some 3rd world country.
I communicated the problems to my member of parliament who refused to become involved. I communicated the problem to Jenica Atwin when as the Green Party member of parliament she sponsored a petition to bring attention to judicial accountability. She crossed the floor less than a month later after being approached by the Liberal Party. I communicated the problem to the Parliamentary Justice committee of human rights and justice but a gatekeeper there deleted the submissions, including a submission to require the CJC to be included in the list of government bodies subject to the FOI Act as my efforts to retrieve my personal files from that institution were denied in contradiction to the open court principle. The Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner Dion has accepted a complaint regarding the conduct of Justice Minister Lametti but he has a poor track record of reporting, which probably has something to do with how long he has remained in that office despite the ongoing failures in accountability. I do understand the difficult nature of the issue and the desire to protect ones friends but there are much larger issues at stake here. I do understand the lack of accountability at the level of MP’s and the Executive through PM Justin Trudeau and the MOJ David Lametti and the GG Mary Simpson’s office. I do understand that the lack of financial disclosure by MP’s through the lobbying act as comparable to lawyers and judges not wanting their personal integrity examined. Parliament has a significant part to play in this story, the issue of Justice Shaw’s suitability as a judge was examined in Parliament in 1999 until the then MOJ Anne McLellan pleaded Parliament for the justice system to self-regulate and Justice Shaw was empowered to complete his destruction of the Charter during my trial in the family law system in 2006. Parliament should take responsibility and complete their role which they abdicated at the time despite all the warnings that any reasonable person could see. In R v Sharpe, using a freedom of expression argument, Justice Shaw declared that the law against child pornography was unconstitutional. I provided similar argument at trial but my defence was for the protection of the Charter of Rights rather than it’s abuse of it. I was denied Justice. That is not equal treatment under the law. As the supreme court of Canada held early on, the reference in the charter “to a free and democratic society” is not a mere description. It is the “final standard” against which purported limitations on the rights the charter secures must be measured.
We have a chance to take this opportunity and create solutions that could benefit all of mankind and place Canada firmly in a position of leadership and inspire the rest of the world for the best result for humanity. Self interest and short term interests are a problem that should always be openly discussed prior to decisions being made. This court has a role to complete the process according to the law.

Communications with the Executive and s 99
In my earlier correspondence with MOJ and Trudeau I wrote on several occassions concerning my security of the person and requesting assurances regarding my safety. That question has never been answered. The threat has been left hanging. I do need your personal assurance for my safety at this time. I watched the inquest into the assassination of Peter DeGroot in Slocan by the rcmp held in this courtroom. It was not lost on me that a perception of a threat to the administration of the justice system in that case, met with the loss of his right to life, and a delay of 7 years before the delivery of “justice” at that hearing. Interestingly, the mother of my children delivered the official pronunciation of death in that matter.
There is however a clear path forward one that is grounded in the law and brings back this matter to the attention of parliament a duty that they failed back in 1999. They too should take responsibility for their actions. Although at this time some accountability should be shared by the PM and Lametti. It is the right thing to do. This is exactly why s 99 exists in the constitution. It is the purpose of ministerial responsibility in a democracy. Delay will cause more damage and make recovery from this situation even more difficult. Denial serves no good purpose.

The issuing of a writ of mandamus for the minister of justice to present this matter to Parliament is the correct legal procedure to resolve this matter before the court. The Minister of Justice should remain impartial and refrain from further comment on the matter at Parliament due to his conflict of interest.

The correct legal response regarding sentencing would be to dismiss all charges and dismiss all fines as a result of the inherent abuse of process. I have made every conceivable effort to right a wrong, and Crown should not seek punishment for that. The issue of the constitutionality of minimum mandatory sentencing should also be examined in this matter. Lastly the ruling in Jordan in regards to providing me a trial within a reasonable time in this matter was breached. The information was sworn on January 8th, 2020 and the trial was on July 15th, 2021. 18 months and 7 days late. My right to a fair and impartial trial were also not provided prior to sentencing.

Concluding Remarks

If you do have any questions on the precedents or some of the evidence or the law that I discuss I would be happy to provide further details. I did not want to insult your intelligence and knowledge by assuming to inform the court of the law. I understand that Judges are assumed to know the law. I merely can express my experience. Punishing me for being the messenger is incorrect and serves no societal purpose, will not reform me, or stop me standing my ground.

the problems that this case communicates is a complete failure to apply the rule of law within almost all of the structures of government when a duty is owed to protect the public. Failure to protect the clients of the legal system and failure of the legal system itself. People under your care, are committing suicide, children are being abused and suffering, justice is delayed and denied, financial devastation for the people you serve. Those that should be subject to criminal charges are being released, or minimally charged, with lawyers receiving payment that is far above that which is justifiable merely for their services. When corruption is accepted by the Government, Nations inevitably fail. It has been proven again and again throughout history.

The constitutional requirement for Parliament to legislate for the Peace order and good government requires that this matter be sent to Parliament due to the successive failures within the legal system to self-regulate. There has been a failure in the public trust and a breach of our governing documents.

The crown unfortunately is still maintaining that nothing here indicates a possibility that there could be a failure to provide a fair and impartial trial. That argument implies that lawyers can alter court documents, dont have to comply with court orders, their law society may protect their conduct, and apply a system designed to sidestep the requirements of their governing act of Parliament to provide written reasons.The law society refusing to respond to my written request for an explanation given the facts that they are complying with their governing statute that provides for their monopoly. Judges claim they have unbounded and unreviewable discretion contrary to the charter and fundamental justice. The Minister of Justice is actively obstructs justice and refusing to present the problem to Parliament, All evidence in the government hands is refused to me ( cra audits, cjc, court records from 2006 are MIA ) At trial in Nakusp Judge Sicotte promised me a fair trial but then claims he knows the law and actively avoids trying to judicially determine if ITA is unconstitutional. Upon further investigation by Crown they can find no such decision to justify that verdict. Crown further claims that anything outside of a very narrow interpretation of the facts is irrelevant and my opinion and experiences are irrelevant. This court claims that they could have legitimately exercised their discretion and sentenced me to 7 years in jail for bringing the matter of corruption in the legal system to their attention despite my pleas for mercy and complying with my sworn oath to uphold the charter of rights which everyone here has also sworn to uphold. The entire public service, the combined legal powers of the AG of BC, AG of Canada, and MOJ office plus the denial of service from every lawyer including civil liberties groups and constitutional lawyers, obstruction of justice by MOJ, and denial of my right to an answer to a constitutional question prior to trial, and you still claim you can provide me with a fair and impartial trial. Let’s go out into the street and ask some random Canadians how they feel about that question, which the court denied me asking the CRA agent at trial.

Unfortunately there have also been efforts to control my freedom of speech in this matter through the internet.
section 2:- “The denial of effective communication to citizens violates free expression where it warrants the greatest protection — the sphere of political discourse.” Harper

Today I request the full and complete judicial resolution of this matter. The consequences of a failure to act is a continuation of the abuse upon myself and continuation of the failure in the rule of law and subsequent failure to resolve a lack of confidence that the people have in the justice system. The success of the justice system is being judged from the incorrect perspective. The correct perspective is that of the Canadian People.

The Charter‘s reference to “a free and democratic society” is not a mere description. As the Supreme Court held, it is the “final standard” against which purported limitations on the rights the Charter secures must be measured. It is true that rights must sometimes be limited, even in a free and democratic society. But the Charter exists because of a recognition by its framers ― and by their constituents ― that those in power are apt to disregard rights, and to seek to limit them for the sake of convenience, or out of ignorance or even spite or hatred. Some limitations may appear defensible in principle but, on closer examination, are not supported by evidence, go too far, or do more harm than good. But others are incompatible with free and democratic societies as a matter of principle. It is unnecessary to scrutinize their tailoring to their purpose, or weigh up their effects. The Charter bars them categorically. The imposition of official beliefs, or the requirement to express beliefs, is the sort of thing that simply must not happen in a free and democratic society; it is incompatible with freedom and democracy. Claiming we must trust the court system despite evidence to the contrary and threaten jail for contempt would not be lawfully enforceable. political beliefs such as discussion regarding the powers, or abuse of power of the court should not be treated any differently.

Ultimately this case is about abuse of power, the limits of discretion and the rule of law and the capability of our systems to internally regulate. We are seeing societal collapse because of these failures. Societies confidence in our political system, legal system, enforcement systems, and the role of family in bringing the next generation into a world that will keep them safe and act in their best interest. We are all failing and calling it success.

I have attempted to notify the Parliamentary committee on Justice and Human Rights but a gatekeeper at that committee has refused to present my evidence to the committee.

The RCMP National Intake Unit tasked with the mandate “to safeguard and investigate significant threats to Canada’s political, economic and social integrity” has refused to investigate and threatened to “destroy evidence” despite their mandate to “investigate complaints concerning federally elected members of Parliament”

This matter is a failing from a matter of Judge Shaw’s fitness as a Judge that was put before Parliament on February 2nd, 1999. Parliament was determined at that time to respond however based on the pleas from the then Minister of Justice Anne McLellan they permitted the Justice system to resolve the matter internally however the consequence of that is reverberating still and will destroy the integrity of Canada’s Justice System unless immediate steps are taken to restore the integrity of the Charter of Rights, and that involves political leadership.

I submit the following quotes from Parliament from all sides of the political spectrum from 1999

“It is important for Parliament to reassert its intention both with respect to the Charter and with respect to ….the criminal code”

“We have a duty to protect citizens.”

“As legislators we have an obligation to conduct ourselves in a manner that respects the rule of law. This is the highest court in the land.”

“The people of Canada assume that the House of Commons is the supreme power in the country. Under this Justice Minister…..the government has allowed the courts to become the lawmakers”

“the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a legal instrument we have given ourselves to guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone. This is an instrument we are proud of, and rightly so. It represents our core values.”

“In the final analysis who is on the hook if a judge screws up? It is the Prime Minister and the Justice Minister”

“I believe that in Canada we have a system where we have parliamentary supremacy. That means we have a responsibility. We cannot abdicate it and say that every question has to go to the Supreme Court. We can act here in the House.”

“The Minister of Justice is not defending the Rule of Law. She is undermining it today by refusing to assert the sovereignty of this Parliament to defend innocent children.”

“The whole issue of trusting the judicial process to address this tragic situation is wrong”

“If we are ever going to send a message to the Judiciary that Parliamentary supremacy over legislation is meaningful, and if the public at large is going to receive that message as well, there is no better time to use this than at a time when something so offends the common sensibilities of people”

“They place greater emphasis on the importance of the authority of judges as opposed to those of us who place greater emphasis on the importance of the authority of Parliament. It is a legitimate debate to have in a democracy.”

“This is not a political issue. there are members of all parties who will support this motion this evening.”

“I call on my colleagues on all sides of the House to not impute motives to one another here but let us assert the sovereignty of this Parliament. We can act. The Constitution gives us the power to act and we must act. To do otherwise is to abdicate our fundamental democratic responsibility.”

“I point out that what distinguishes our society from non-democratic societies is the rule of law. There is no question that no one in the House today has indicated anything but abhorrence for the decision of Judge Shaw’

“Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Based on an earlier decision of a vote in the House, may I recommend we close this place and let the judges and courts run this country.”

I also had the good fortune to read Trust by the former Governor General of Canada. I just include a summary of quotes from the Introduction, foreword, and first Chapter. The message is clear.

Twenty ways to build a better country

by David Johnston ( who is also a lawyer )

28th Governor General of Canada

‘To children, who offer their trust instinctively and with full expectation of fairness”

Foreword by the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
“One of the most important challenges of our day – how to maintain trust in ourselves and our institutions.”
( —— “Trust in most democracies is decreasing. Yet without trust, our democracies cannot function effectively.”
“how we can restore trust by making ourselves worthy of trust, by building trust around us and by creating a more trustworthy and trusted country.”
“We sometimes feel that our individual actions cannot make a meaningful and lasting difference in the complex world we inhabit. This book puts the lie to that feeling. It demonstrates that every one of us, high or humble, can work to increase trust in ourselves, our society, and our country.”

Introduction – An invitation to trust
Trust as a firm belief in the reliability, truth or ability of someone or something; or the acceptance of the truth of a statement without proof.
Trust is the bedrock of democracy. Democracy….depends on a rule of law that strives toward justice. That rule of law depends on trust-a trust in each other as citizens and a trust between citizens and the institutions that stand for and serve them.
Trust in these relationships means sharing a belief in basic facts. People who trust are reluctant to tailor facts to their views, instead of their views to the facts.
If one does not consider anything to be true, if one believes facts are fungible commodities, if one thinks journalism is a sham and history a con, then the rule of law cannot work. And if the rule of law cannot work, then our democracy and its institutions are doomed.
We tend to think little about trust because it is a curious quality that is almost always more noticeable in its absence than its presence – as something much more likely to be lost than gained.
“Well placed trust grown out of active inquiry rather than blind acceptance” Onara O’Neill
Equipped with this understanding, we can then – with eyes wide open – identify, explore, and evaluate the attitudes, habits, and approaches that make a person trustworthy, that make a business, organization, or public institution trustworthy, and that make a country trustworthy. —– )

Part 1 – Make yourself worthy of trust.

  1. Never manipulate – trusting relationships depend on full, true, and plain disclosure and a commitment never to distort or deceive.
    Full and true disclosure of relevant information in all aspects of a democratic society gives citizens the capacity to filter truths from falsehoods
    An important distinction must be made between manipulation and persuasion. The worst leaders manipulate by failing to disclose vital information or by disclosing only the information that support their views, decisions and actions. The best leaders persuade in great part by being open about their motives and goals.
    The urgent need for someone in authority to act in a way to preserve trust…., or at least prevent a substantial erosion of that trust.
    Disclose fully and truly. Share credit. Accept responsibility. And, above all, never manipulate and certainly never deceive. I hope I have made myself clear.

I know that your father was instrumental in the efforts to bring the Charter of Rights to the people of Canada. Follow and extend your legacy by protecting your father’s. The people will love you for it. There is much work to be done. I am available and I want to help to restore the integrity of your office, Parliament and the Justice system. Leadership is required.

I attach the communication with the Parliamentary Commissioner of Ethics, the United Nations, The Minister of Justice and the brief provided to the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I am currently in the Court system and this situation is compromising the integrity of the RCMP, Crown Prosecution office, Judges, the MOJ, Parliament and your own office. The people are looking for your leadership.

Yours sincerely,

Trevor Holsworth