Members Login
Post Info TOPIC: Supreme Court Judgment/follow link 4 full article


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 608
Date:
Supreme Court Judgment/follow link 4 full article
Permalink  
 


https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/100/index.do

 

 

Supreme Court Judgments

 

Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486

 

IN THE MATTER OF the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 63

 

AND IN THE MATTER OF the Reference re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 288, as amended by the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982, 1982 (B.C.), c. 36.

 

File No.: 17590.

 

1984: November 15; 1985: December 17.

 

Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain JJ.

 

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

 

Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights  ‑‑ Right to life, liberty and security of the person and right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with principles of fundamental justice ‑‑ Whether or not absolute liability offence with mandatory imprisonment in breach of that right ‑‑ Meaning of term principles of fundamental justice ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14  ‑‑ Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52  ‑‑ Canadian Bill of Rights, s. 2(e) ‑‑ Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 288, s. 94(1), (2).

 

Criminal law ‑‑ Absolute liability offence with mandatory imprisonment ‑‑ Charter  right to liberty and right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance


with principles of fundamental justice ‑‑ Whether or not offence in breach of that Charter  right.

 

The B.C. Motor Vehicle Act provided for minimum periods of imprisonment for the offence of driving on a highway or industrial road without a valid driver's licence or with a licence under suspension. Section 94(2) of the Act, moreover, provided that this offence was one of absolute liability in which guilt was established by the proof of driving, whether or not the driver knew of the prohibition or suspension. The Court of Appeal, on a reference by the provincial government, found s. 94(2) to be of no force or effect as it was inconsistent with s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms : "the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." That decision was appealed to this Court.

 

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

 

Per Dickson C.J. and Beetz, Chouinard, Lamer and Le Dain JJ.: A law with the potential of convicting a person who really has done nothing wrong offends the principles of fundamental justice and violates a person's right to liberty under s. 7  of the Charter  if imprisonment is available as a penalty.

 


The analysis of s. 7  was limited to determining the scope of the words "principles of fundamental justice". That phrase is not a protected right but a qualifier to the protected right not to be deprived of "life, liberty and security of the person"; its function is to set the parameters of that right. Interpretation of the term must be with reference to the protected rights but not so as to frustrate or stultify them. An interpretation equating "fundamental justice" with "natural justice" would not only be wrong, in that it would strip the protected interests of most of their content, but also would be inconsistent with the affirmative purposive expression of those rights.

 

Sections 8  to 14  address specific deprivations of the "right" to life, liberty and security of the person in breach of the principles of fundamental justice, and as such, violations of s. 7 . These sections are illustrative of the meaning of "principles of fundamental justice" in criminal or penal law. They recognize principles given expression at common law, by international convention and in the very entrenchment of the Charter  as essential elements for the administration of justice founded on the dignity and worth of the human person and the rule of law.

 

The principles of fundamental justice are to be found in the basic tenets and principles not only of our judicial process but also of the other components of our legal system. These principles are not limited to procedural guarantees, although many are of that nature. Whether any given principle may be said to be a principle of fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7  must rest on an analysis of the nature, sources, rationale and essential role of that principle within the judicial process and in our evolving legal system. The words "principles of fundamental justice", therefore, cannot be given any exhaustive content or simple enumerative definition but will take on concrete meaning as the courts address alleged violations of s. 7 .

 


The Minutes of the Proceedings of the Special Joint Committee were admissible but without much weight given the inherent unreliability of such speeches and statements. The comments of a few public servants, however distinguished, could not be determinative in light of the many actors and the role of the provinces in arriving at the Charter . To cast the interpretation of s. 7  in terms of the comments made at the Joint Committee Proceedings would freeze the rights, values and freedoms expressed in the Charter  as of the moment of adoption and deny it growth and adjustment over time.

 

The Canadian Bill of Rights, too, was of little assistance in construing s. 7 . The words "principles of fundamental justice" in s. 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights are placed explicitly in context of and qualify a "right to a fair hearing". Section 7  of the Charter  does not create the same context: the words "principles of fundamental justice" are placed in context of and qualify much more fundamental rights. The distinction was important.

 

Absolute liability does not per se violate s. 7  of the Charter . An absolute liability offence violates s. 7  only if and to the extent that it has the potential to deprive life, liberty or the security of the person. There is no need that imprisonment be mandatory. The combination of imprisonment and absolute liability, however, violates s. 7  irrespective of the nature of the offence and can only be salvaged if the authorities demonstrate, under s. 1 , such a deprivation to be a justified limit in a free and democratic society. Generally, no imprisonment may be imposed for an absolute liability offence and an offence punishable by imprisonment cannot be an absolute liability offence.

 

Public interest cannot be a factor in determining if absolute liability offends the principles of fundamental justice but only as a justification under s. 1 . Administrative expediency, invoked as a justification for sacrificing s. 7  rights, should only succeed in cases arising out of exceptional conditions such as war, natural disasters or epidemics.

 


Section 94(2) enacts in the clearest of terms an absolute liability offence for which conviction will result in a person's being deprived of his liberty. Whether or not the provision is of limited or broad effect cannot change the fact that it is in violation of the Charter  and at best could only be considered under s. 1 . Notwithstanding the desirability of keeping bad drivers off the roads or of punishing them, no evidence was adduced demonstrating this end or the risk of imprisonment of a few innocent people to be a reasonable and justifiable limit on s. 7  within the meaning of s. 1  of the Charter .

 

Per McIntyre J.: Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act is inconsistent with s. 7  of the Charter . Fundamental justice, as used in the Charter , involves more than natural justice, which is largely procedural, and includes a substantive element. On any definition of the term "fundamental justice", the imposition of minimum imprisonment for an offence which may be committed unknowingly and without intent and for which no defence can be made deprives or may deprive of liberty and offends the principles of fundamental justice.

 

Per Wilson J.: Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act violates s. 7  of the Charter  and is not saved by s. 1 . This is because a mandatory sanction of imprisonment cannot be attached to an absolute liability offence without offending s. 7 .

 

The phrase "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" is not a qualification on the right to life, liberty and security of the person in the sense that it limits or modifies that right or defines its parameters. Rather it protects the right against deprivation or impairment unless such deprivation or impairment is effected in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

 

Section 7  does not affirm a right to the principles of fundamental justice per se. Accordingly an absolute liability offence does not offend s. 7  unless it violates the right to either the life, liberty or security of the person through a violation of the principles of fundamental justice.


Section 1  of the Charter  permits reasonable limits to be placed on the citizen's s. 7  right provided the limits are "prescribed by law" and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. If these limits are not imposed in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, however, they can be neither reasonable nor justified under s. 1 . The phrase "except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" restricts the government's power to impose limits under s. 1 . A limit imposed on the s. 7  right in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice must still meet the tests in s. 1 .

 

The courts must determine the principles which fall under the rubric "principles of fundamental justice". It would seem, however, that the phrase must include the fundamental tenets of our justice system. The framers of the Charter  obviously deliberately avoided the concepts of "natural justice" and "due process". There seems no good reason to restrict the principles of fundamental justice to procedural matters in light of the reference to the rule of law in the preamble. Indeed, no purpose is achieved by importing the dichotomy between substance and procedure into s. 7 .

 

The principles of sentencing, and especially that the minimum sentence required to obtain the objectives of the system be imposed, were key to determining that s. 94(2) offended fundamental justice. Imprisonment is the most severe sentence imposed by law, apart from death, and is generally reserved as a last resort for occasions when other sanctions cannot achieve the objectives of the system. Mandatory imprisonment for an absolute liability offence committed unknowingly and unwittingly and after the exercise of due diligence is excessive and inhumane. Such sanction offends the principles of fundamental justice embodied in our penal system and accordingly is inconsistent with s. 7  of the Charter .

 

Cases Cited


R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; Amax Potash Ltd. v. Government of Saskatchewan, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 576; Kienapple v. The Queen, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; Curr v. The Queen, [1972] S.C.R. 889; Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; R. v. Cadeddu (1982), 40 O.R. (2d) 128; Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; Latham v. Solicitor General of Canada, [1984] 2 F.C. 734, 39 C.R. (3d) 78; Re Mason; Mason v. R. in Right of Canada (1983), 35 C.R. (3d) 393; R. v. Holman (1982), 28 C.R. (3d) 378; Gosselin v. The King (1903), 33 S.C.R. 255; Reference re Wartime Leasehold Regulations, [1950] S.C.R. 124; Reference re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297; Re: Anti‑Inflation Act, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373; Re Residential Tenancies Act, 1979, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 714; Re: Authority of Parliament in relation to the Upper House, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54; Attorney General of Canada v. Canadian National Transportation, Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 206; Duke v. The Queen, [1972] S.C.R. 917; McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1942); Harding v. Price, [1948] 1 K.B. 695; Beaver v. The Queen, [1957] S.C.R. 531; R. v. MacDougall, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 605; Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney General for Canada, [1931] A.C. 310; R. v. Pierce Fisheries Ltd., [1971] S.C.R. 5, referred to.

 

Statutes and Regulations Cited

 

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, preamble, s. 2(e).

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , preamble, ss. 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 33 .

 

Constitutional Act, 1867, ss. 91(27), 92(14).

 

Constitutional Act, 1982, s. 52(1).

 

Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 63, s. 1.

 


Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 288, s. 94 (am. by Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982, 1982 (B.C.), c. 36, s. 19).

 

 

Authors Cited

 

Abel, A. S. "The Neglected Logic of 91 and 92" (1969), 19 U. of T. L.J. 487, 487‑521.

 

Allen, Sir Carleton Kemp. Legal Duties and Other Essays in Jurisprudence, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1931.

 

Archbold, John Frederick. Pleading, Evidence & Practice in Criminal Cases, 30th ed. by Robert Ernest Ross and Maxwell Turner, London, Sweet & Maxwell, Ltd., 1938.

 

Blackstone, Sir William. Commentaries on the Laws of England, 17th ed., by E. Christian, London, T. Tagg, 1830.

 

Canada. Law Reform Commission of Canada. Working Paper 11, "Imprisonment and Release" in Studies on Imprisonment, Ottawa, Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1976.

 

Holdsworth, Sir William S. A History of English Law, 3rd ed., vol. 2, London, Methuem & Co. Ltd., 1923.

 

Kenny, Courtney Stanhope. Outlines of Criminal Law, 16th ed. by J. W. Cecil Turner, Cambridge, University Press, 1952.

 

Laskin, B. Canadian Constitutional Law, 3rd ed. rev., Toronto, Carswells, 1969.

 

Lederman, W. R., ed. The Courts and the Canadian Constitution, Toronto, McClelland & Stewart Ltd., 1964.

 

Magnet, J. E. "The Presumption of Constitutionality" (1980), 18 Osgoode Hall L.J. 87, 87‑145.

 

Tremblay, L. "Section 7  of the Charter : Substantive Due Process?" (1984), 18 U.B.C.L. Rev. 201, 201‑254.

 

Walker, Nigel. Sentencing in a Rational Society, Western Printing Services Ltd., Bristol, 1969.

 

Williams, G. Criminal Law, The General Part, 2nd ed., London, Stevens & Sons Ltd., 1961.

 


APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1983), 42 B.C.L.R. 364, 147 D.L.R. (3d) 539, 4 C.C.C. (3d) 243, 33 C.R. (3d) 22, 5 C.R.R. 148, 19 M.V.R. 63, [1983] 3 W.W.R. 756, in the matter of a reference concerning the constitutional validity of s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia. Appeal dismissed.

 


Introduction

 

2.                A law that has the potential to convict a person who has not really done anything wrong offends the principles of fundamental justice and, if imprisonment is available as a penalty, such a law then violates a person's right to liberty under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act, 1982 , as enacted by the Canada Act, 1982, 1982 (U.K.), c. 11).

 

3.                In other words, absolute liability and imprisonment cannot be combined.

 

The Facts

 

4.                On August 16, 1982, the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council of British Columbia referred the following question to the Court of Appeal of that province, by virtue of s. 1 of the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 63:

 

Is s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, as amended by the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

 

5.                On February 3, 1983, the Court of Appeal handed down reasons in answer to the question in which it stated that s. 94(2) of the Act is inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms : (1983), 42 B.C.L.R. 364, 147 D.L.R. (3d) 539, 4 C.C.C. (3d) 243, 33 C.R. (3d) 22, 5 C.R.R. 148, 19 M.V.R. 63, [1983] 3 W.W.R. 756. The Attorney General for British Columbia launched an appeal to this Court.

 

The Legislation


6.                Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 288, s. 94, as amended by the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982, 1982 (B.C.), c. 36, s. 19:

 

 

 

94. (1) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a highway or industrial road while

 

(a) he is prohibited from driving a motor vehicle under sections 90, 91, 92 or 92.1, or

 

(b) his driver's licence or his right to apply for or obtain a driver's licence is suspended under section 82 or 92 as it was before its repeal and replacement came into force pursuant to the Motor Vehicle  Amendment Act, 1982,

 

commits an offence and is liable,

 

(c) on a first conviction, to a fine of not less than $300 and not more than $2 000 and to imprisonment for not less than 7 days and not more than 6 months, and

 

(d) on a subsequent conviction, regardless of when the contravention occurred, to a fine Of not less than $300 and not more than $2 000 and to imprisonment for not less than 14 days and not more than one year.

 

(2) Subsection (1) creates an absolute liability offence in which guilt is established by proof of driving, whether or not the defendant knew of the prohibition or suspension.

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ; Constitution Act, 1982 :

 


 

 
 
 
 


__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 608
Date:
Permalink  
 

Charter of rights and freedoms point to such.By such statement "This charter does not override previous existing rights that exist in Canada.
laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada. (Comment in margin: “Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter”)

Magna Carta:

39.“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."

Un declaration of human rights.
Article 2.


Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.


Article 3.


Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.


No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 7.


All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.


Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.


No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 9.


No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 11.


(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
[Canadian Criminal Code 15 supports above]


Article 12.


No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

[ which includes by any means available unfettered/unhindered Case law supports such]

The Sang Chong Case of 1909 in British Columbia (B.C. Appeals Court) stated in the Judges finding for a street peddlar of vegetables, that one of the freedoms enjoyed by the people was free use of the highways.

The government doesn’t own the highways.
• The government holds the highways in trust for the people. (Example: a trustee is holding your money, but has no jurisdiction to spend it without your consent, even if he thinks it’s in your best interest).
• The rules of Traffic Acts are there to regulate the use of highways in the public’s interest.
But not to destroy your rights to use them.
• Traveling on public highway in your car is a right not a privilege.Fees
• An execution of a right can not be charged a fee.
• Insurance fees can not be mandatory. .
• Historical note: when insurance was first introduced rates were low. In Manitoba, in past 10 years, motorcycle insurance went up over 288%. The amount of motor-cyclists went down from 20,000 to 5,000.
• Other types of unlawful fees are: parking fees, speeding tickets, charges for registration and renewal of a driver license (they are there to raise revenue for police).

A "DRIVER" is defined in the National Safety Code - the Federal regulations governing commercial operations on Canada's highways - as: "A DRIVER is a person who drives a commercial vehicle".


Any common dictionary will tell you that the word "drives" means directing something or someone to a destination. "COMMERCIAL" means a venture wherein there is a profit, or intended profit. A "BUSINESS" is a COMMERCIAL venture. "MOTOR CARRIER AUTHORITY" is exercised over Commercial TRANSPORTATION. A VEHICLE engaged in COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION is called a COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION is the acting as a third party in the movement of passengers (with tickets) or goods (with bill of lading) in the exercise of the liberty or property right.

Since the exercise of exchanging one's skill and labour for money is a right, the driving of a commercial transportation vehicle cannot be deemed an unlawful act requiring a license. Therefore, the term "driver or commercial driver" can only apply to an "owner/operator".


There are many precedent setting cases, as well as constitutional documents in the USA which state the same sentiments as did the B.C. Judges in 1909.

The RIGHT TO TRAVEL derives from the inalienable property right, in that, one has the right to exchange or sell property. The place of exchange or sale of property is the "market" - a term with broad meaning. Travel to market is guaranteed through the property right. Remember, LABOUR and SKILLS are property. Also, the right to travel is included in your right to go to the church of your choice. The travel rights were invoked in ancient times to prevent interference in the exercise of primary rights. The right to travel is part of the absolute right of "liberty". Liberty also entails the right to exercise other rights.

In the above definitions, there is a question as to whether a person who is hired or contracted to drive a commercial vehicle is actually doing anything that could be considered unlawful; and, therefore in need of a license. It seems that the licensing need would only fall upon an owner/operator or the owners of a trucking or busing company.


FURTHER CASE HISTORIES:

1 Chitty Pr. 32
Barron v. Burnside 121 U.S. 186
Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607
Buchanan v. Warley 245 U.S. 60, 74
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22
Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171
Deibel v. Kreiss, 50 N.E. 2d 1000 (1943)
Ferrante Equipment Co. v. Foley Machinery Co., N.J., 231 A.2d 208, 211, 49 N.J. 432
Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E. 2d 135
Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43
Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25 AM. Dec. 677
In re Hong Wah, 82 Fed. 623
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125
Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934
McKevitt et al v. Golden Age Breweries, Inc., 126 P.2d 1077 (1942)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105
O'Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37
Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140
Parish of Morehouse v. Brigham, 6 S. 257
Parish v. Thurston 87 Ind. 437 (1882)
People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210
Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139
Rogers Construction Co. v. Hill, Or., 384 P.2d 219, 222, 235 Or. 352
Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513
State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864
State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073
Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S.E. 579, 580
Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98
Wells v. Zenz, 236 P. 485
Western Turf Assn. v. Greenberg, 204 U.S. 359
Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274


Article 17.


(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 25.


(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

In response, since 2009, the ACLU and ACLU affiliates across the country have been exposing and challenging modern-day debtors' prisons, and urging governments and courts to pursue more rational and equitable approaches to criminal justice debt.

Debtors' prisons impose devastating human costs. They lead to coercive debt collection, forcing poor people to forgo the basic necessities of life in order to avoid arrest and jailing. Debtors' prisons waste taxpayer money and resources by jailing people who may never be able to pay their debts. This imposes direct costs on the government and further destabilizes the lives of poor people struggling to pay their debts and leave the criminal justice system behind. And most troubling, debtors' prisons create a racially-skewed, two-tiered system of justice in which the poor receive harsher, longer punishments for committing the same crimes as the rich, simply because they are poor.

Ultimately, debtors' prisons are not only unfair and insensible, they are also illegal. Imprisoning someone because she cannot afford to pay court-imposed fines or fees violates the Fourteenth Amendment promises of due process and equal protection under the law.

The ACLU and ACLU affiliates are uncovering how debtors' prisons across the country undermine the criminal justice system and threaten civil rights and civil liberties. We are working in state legislatures and courts, and with judicial officials to end these practices once and for all.
There Is No Debtor Prison

No, you cannot go to jail for not paying your debts

One of Janice and Larry’s creditor’s has obtained a judgment against them. This couple have heard many collection stories and Janice is afraid the judgment creditor is going to garnish their wages, she thinks they may lose their jobs, or worse, that they might be put in jail. They are both relieved to hear there is no such thing as debtor prison.

Enforcement of a Judgment

If the debtor either cannot or will not pay the debt, the creditor has several possible courses of action to attempt to enforce the judgment. The creditor may choose either to garnish the debtor’s wages or bank account or to seize some of the debtor’s goods under an execution order.





4. People can only be imprisoned based on reasonable and fair laws

A provision in a provincial Motor Vehicle Act stated that anyone found guilty of driving on a highway without a license or with a suspended license would face an automatic prison sentence. This meant that drivers could be found guilty even if they did not know that their license was suspended. The province of British Columbia asked the Supreme Court to decide whether this clause was consistent with the Charter.

The majority of the Court found that the law was inconsistent with the Charter, based on the principle that no one should be put in jail if they have no intent to commit a criminal act.

This case was significant because the Court found that the Charter requires laws that can lead to imprisonment or other deprivations of life, liberty or security of the person must be procedurally and substantively fair to the accused person.[To which they are not as there is conflict of interests,bringing the administration of any such justice into DisRepute.]

Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 SCR 486



-- Edited by Ground Pounder on Wednesday 21st of March 2018 11:07:36 PM

__________________


St THOMAS, ONT

Status: Offline
Posts: 647
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tried reading it, but got confused. Can you give me the readers digest version please??

__________________

If brains were wire, some couldn't short circuit a firefly.



Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 608
Date:
Permalink  
 

parklane wrote:

Tried reading it, but got confused. Can you give me the readers digest version please??


 Yes.

Legal documents an judgements can be very confusing.

Basicly this judgement proves one does not need a "DRIVERS LICENCE" to exercise their constitutional rights to travel on public roads .[could write a book on this subject]

In order to go about their lives in their pursuit of happiness to earn their 'LIBERTIES'

 [Remember this is a supreme court judgement to which no lower courts can rule 'AGAINST"]

The document from the supreme court Covers every plausible use of the wordings to which the constitution/charter  holds.

The discission they reached was that a "drivers licence "is in violation of section 7 of the canadian rights and freedoms.

 

To which (althrough they stop short of telling ] That each an every charter violation is worth 10'000 per officer per agent ,per infringement involved.Amounts which can be found mentioned in the uniform bonding code]

 

Now think how much "EVERYONE IS OWED DUE TO THEIR DECEPTION"

Enough to make everyone a millionaire .Problem being would more then likely bankrupt the corporation of CANADA.

Leaving some with no pay out.

 

Time to reinstate the bank of Canada to which has been "STOLEN" yet again Through Deception!!!

Throw the banker out of our "Republic"

Some tunes below ...Not related to above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqszfdqL8F4&list=RDGpEOmZTYA4A&index=5

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KnAzpi4avo&index=6&list=RDGpEOmZTYA4A






-- Edited by Ground Pounder on Friday 23rd of March 2018 07:50:34 PM

__________________


GTA

Status: Offline
Posts: 171
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ground Pounder wrote:

 

Basicly this judgement proves one does not need a "DRIVERS LICENCE" to exercise their constitutional rights to travel on public roads .[could write a book on this subject]

In order to go about their lives in their pursuit of happiness to lean their 'LIBERTIES'.


 

"The constitutional right to travel on public roads" without a drivers licence can easily and LEGALLY be done ... just ride a bicycle biggrin

If you are suggesting it is within our rights to drive (operate a motor vehicle) on a public road without a drivers licence, doesn't that also mean "they" also CAN'T restrict a person due to their age too?  Wouldn't that mean that an uneducated (as far as the "rules of the road" and "how to operate a motor vehicle") five year old child can legally operate a motor vehicle on any public road?  Ahhh, no thank you ... drivers that are presently required to take a written or driving test in order to prove their competence are bad enough, I sure as hell don't want to share the road with an infant driver who just ceased breast feeding.  Just sayin'

Just curious, do YOU presently have a valid Ontario issued drivers licence?  If the answer is "yes" my next obvious question is "why"?

 

 



-- Edited by Pete Moss on Friday 23rd of March 2018 03:49:30 PM

__________________

Actually, in real racing ... it IS how fast you went.



ONTARIO

Status: Offline
Posts: 386
Date:
Permalink  
 

ikjjbry.jpg?w=585&h=327

 



-- Edited by Petebil on Friday 23rd of March 2018 05:11:43 PM

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 608
Date:
Permalink  
 

Petebil wrote:

ikjjbry.jpg?w=585&h=327

 



li·bel
[ˈlībəl]
 
NOUN
  1. law
    a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.Compare with slander.
    synonyms: defamation · defamation of character · character assassination ·
  2. (in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration.
VERB
  1. law
    defame (someone) by publishing a libel.
    "she alleged the magazine had libeled her"
    synonyms: defame · malign · slander · give someone a bad name ·
  2. (in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) bring a suit against (someone).
     
    Best be careful Pete you might find yourself served!!!

 



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 608
Date:
Permalink  
 

Pete Moss wrote:
Ground Pounder wrote:

 

Basicly this judgement proves one does not need a "DRIVERS LICENCE" to exercise their constitutional rights to travel on public roads .[could write a book on this subject]

In order to go about their lives in their pursuit of happiness to lean their 'LIBERTIES'.


 

"The constitutional right to travel on public roads" without a drivers licence can easily and LEGALLY be done ... just ride a bicycle biggrin

If you are suggesting it is within our rights to drive (operate a motor vehicle) on a public road without a drivers licence, doesn't that also mean "they" also CAN'T restrict a person due to their age too?  Wouldn't that mean that an uneducated (as far as the "rules of the road" and "how to operate a motor vehicle") five year old child can legally operate a motor vehicle on any public road?  Ahhh, no thank you ... drivers that are presently required to take a written or driving test in order to prove their competence are bad enough, I sure as hell don't want to share the road with an infant driver who just ceased breast feeding.  Just sayin'

Just curious, do YOU presently have a valid Ontario issued drivers licence?  If the answer is "yes" my next obvious question is "why"?

 

 

Hey Pete Moss: this ruling has nothing to do with a :A competency test is a tool used in human resources to test a person's proficiency level in a particular skill.

 

Lets use common sence Eh Pete Moss..

Yet the funny thing is common Sence seems to be hard thing to come across these days Huh.

 

 

 

 



 






-- Edited by Ground Pounder on Friday 23rd of March 2018 08:15:34 PM

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 608
Date:
Permalink  
 

@ Pete Moss An @ Pete Bil
If this is the kind of stuff you think makes sence to you then have at er!!!
I'll keep administrating my own estate/affairs/assets..no one should have to go through the bull**** the article below displays.
Well you rely on nanny government to hold your hands.

'I'm completely fed up,' 85-year-old says of CRA disability tax credit delays
[CBC]
CBCMarch 23, 2018
'I'm completely fed up,' 85-year-old says of CRA disability tax credit delays
'I'm completely fed up,' 85-year-old says of CRA disability tax credit delays

An 85-year-old Halifax man is at his wit's end in his efforts to have his wife's disability tax credit processed by the Canada Revenue Agency, a discouraging nine-month odyssey that's left him wondering why he tried in the first place.

"I'm completely fed up. Completely fed up," Glen Jefferson said in an interview. "It's been so terrible and caused a lot of grief."

He and his 82-year-old wife, Lillian, have been married for 66 years and still live in their own home. She has been diagnosed with dementia, so Glen Jefferson is responsible for everything. He buys groceries, cooks meals, cleans the house, does the laundry and cares for his wife 24/7.

The disability tax credit, which can be worth thousands of dollars to those who qualify, is designed to provide help for people who have mental or physical impairments that are "severe and prolonged," according to the CRA.

Jefferson said he applied for the credit for his wife because they need it.

"It would be nice if we could have the funds to help out here because I live on a limited pension that I get at the end of the month and it takes everything to keep us going," he said.

Jefferson applied for the disability tax credit last June. In December, he received a letter from the CRA confirming he had sent them a completed Form T2201.

But the letter also said the CRA had not received a completed questionnaire from his doctor outlining Lillian Jefferson's ailments and her level of functioning, even though the physician had completed the part of the application that was required. It is unclear whether a subsequent questionnaire was sent to the doctor.

Earlier this month, Jefferson received another CRA letter, this one saying the tax agency could not determine disability because he had not completed Form T2201.

He called CRA, but no one there was able to help or explain why he had received conflicting letters.

He has written to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who referred his letter to Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier. A staffer in her office responded by email and said: "Your email is receiving necessary consideration and the appropriate follow-up will be made by the Minister's Office as soon as possible."

Jefferson also contacted his MP, Geoff Regan.

'I don't understand it'

Jefferson said he was told the CRA was unable to process the application until they spoke with his doctor but it couldn't locate the physician because he had moved from Nova Scotia.

Shaun Brown, a family friend who has been helping the Jeffersons, said it took him just five minutes on Google to locate the doctor in Toronto. The CRA was provided with the doctor's contact information, but Jefferson heard nothing after the information was sent.

"I'm really puzzled as to why they put an elderly gentleman who's struggling to stay in his own home and care for his wife who required full-time care through this," Brown said. "I don't understand it."

Brown said he's not sure whether a staffing issue or bureaucracy is to blame, but after seeing what the Jeffersons have gone through he can understand why companies exist to help people manoeuvre through the application process.

"It's frustrating, it's time consuming and it seems like every turn you make you run into a wall," Brown said.

Those companies charge approximately 30 per cent of whatever the disability tax credit applicant receives from the government.

"It's a shame to think there are people out there who qualify and can really use the credit and they're having to give 30 per cent of their money away to these companies to help them out," Brown said. "It shouldn't be as difficult as it is."

The CRA was directed more than three years ago to develop regulations limiting how much companies can charge to assist disability tax credit applicants.

The CRA is not able to provide a date when the draft regulation will be made public. Even then, the CRA will seek feedback before legislation is created and introduced in the House of Commons.

Jeffersons application approved

After CBC News contacted the CRA on March 13 about the Jeffersons' application, Glen Jefferson received a call from the tax agency the same day. He said he was told his case would be reviewed in the coming week

On Friday morning, after this story was published, Jefferson received another call from the CRA, telling him his DTC application has been approved.

"Well, I'm really happy, I'm telling you," he told CBC.

Jefferson applied retroactively for the DTC for his wife and he's been told the first year of the tax credit was put in his bank account Thursday, and a letter has been sent outlining their future eligibility.

In an email to CBC News, a CRA spokesperson said the agency cannot comment on individual cases, but making sure Canadians can access the benefits and credits they are entitled to is a key commitment of the federal government.

"The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) makes every effort to process the requests for the DTC and make a determination within 6 to 8 weeks upon receipt of a completed application from an individual," Etienne Biram said.

Biram said each case is unique and some require additional information from the taxpayer and/or their medical practitioner, and this may extend the period of time it takes to review the application.

Biram said the CRA receives an average of 250,000 applications for the disability tax credit each year.

He said 700,000 Canadians claim the credit on their annual tax return and the number of files that have yet to be processed changes on a daily basis as the tax centres work through the inventory.

"There are no files in the inventory that were received more than two years ago," he said.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 608
Date:
Permalink  
 

Quite simply ..I am disgusted at your childish behavior /Immature comments.

__________________


GTA

Status: Offline
Posts: 171
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ground Pounder wrote:

 

Basicly this judgement proves one does not need a "DRIVERS LICENCE" to exercise their constitutional rights to travel on public roads

Ground Pounder wrote:

this ruling has nothing to do with a :A competency test is a tool used in human resources to test a person's proficiency level in a particular skill.

 Lets use common sence Eh Pete Moss.. 

Quite simply ..I am disgusted at your childish behavior /Immature comments. 

 

 


 

 

 

A drivers licence is only issued once a person has met the requirements of reaching the minimum age of 16 (in Ontario) AND has proven they are competent by passing either a written or a driving test.  I was issued my Ontario drivers licence ONLY AFTER meeting these requirements.

Remove the requirement of a drivers licence in order to operate a motor vehicle on a public road and you are effectively removing the need to reach a minimum age or prove competency.

If a drivers licence is not legally required and EVERYONE OF ANY AGE has the right to "pursue happiness", that means ANYONE OF ANY AGE can operate a motor vehicle on a public road, would it not?  ANY AGE means a person of 85 years of age, a child of 9, or an infant of 8 months.  

You are more than welcome to call me immature and childish but that doesn't change the fact that, as I stated earlier, if a drivers licence is not required in Ontario, then (hypothetically speaking) an infant would be able to legally operate a motor vehicle on a public road, whether it's a Briggs & Stratton minibike, a motorized skateboard or an automobile.

 

If a drivers licence isn't proof of competency and that a person has met the minimum age requirement, then what is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 










-- Edited by Pete Moss on Saturday 24th of March 2018 07:04:48 PM

__________________

Actually, in real racing ... it IS how fast you went.

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard