80 days jail and no miscarriage of justice...

and the denial of my children access to their father.

This is the email that I sent

This is the Constitutional Question that I asked of the Court

and the response from the AG of Canada. No response from the BC AG.

On September 6th I attempted to contact the Registry for details and again on the 7th, “I have phoned the Nelson Court registry and they tell me that I am on the list today for 2pm for a garnishment hearing. I have had no correspondence sharing this information. All I know is that a date was set for today and I understood crown was threatening me with 60 days in jail. If I could be updated that would be helpful.”

I received no response. Read this summary of the trial and ask yourself, as a reasonable, well informed person if this is a fair and impartial trial…

My first comments to the Court shared my experience getting to Court that morning.

I had previously asked lawyer B. Hird if he had read all of my communications with FMEP ( child support collection agency ). The previous lawyer had quit working for the organization and quit as a lawyer within a couple of days of a prior hearing when she had requested Justice Sicotte step out of the constraints of the Charter because “it’s a narrow issue” and the Judge agreed although they were also seeking a term of imprisonment. That experience is shared here.
I was surprised to see a familiar face in the Court, he was also there when I was served with the informations on my Income Tax Act Challenge the subject of my original court hearing on July 16, 2021

The Court asked Counsel if they had seen the constitutional question and he said no, sounds like the BC AG did not forward but the judge continued,

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: They are termed the walking wounded. It’s a sad name. But the same author of that article also has another one called “The Mighty Fortress is our Supreme Court”. I did follow the debate in the Judges Act as it went through Parliament. I submitted briefs to the Judges Act as it went through the House of Commons, and they were ignored.

I followed it through the Senate, and I made suggestions. And I put forward the problem of judges claiming absolute discretion over all evidence. I addressed it to every single senator. I did not get a single response. I have also written registered letters to the premiers of every single province, and I outlined this problem. I have not received a single response.

except from the Minister of Justice of the Province of Saskatchewan, who declined to give legal advice and to seek advice of a lawyer.

I have written about the problem to the Speaker of the House, and he has responded saying that he does not have authority or jurisdiction. I merely informed him of the situation. And I also sent the problem to the prol -- Parliamentary Commission on Parliamentary Affairs, asking for their advice on the best way to serve Parliament, and I have not received a response.

But what I am suggesting that I do is serve Parliament with the constitutional question of, “Do judges have authority to ignore their own transcript?” But it gets worse. I’ve been in correspondence with the Canadian Judicial Council, and I made a complaint about a lawyer -- a judge ignoring the transcript. And they submitted it to a judge to determine whether it should be examined, and the judge decided that it should not. They did not examine the transcripts. They did nothing. No investigations whatsoever were conducted.

I wrote back to them and said, “I think you should reconsider your position on this.” They declined to respond. I resubmitted a complaint, and I addressed it to the judge that made that ruling and requested that that discretion be checked. And Norman Sabourin at the Canadian Judicial Council, the senior counsel there, wrote back and said that my request was an abuse of process.

But unfortunately, according to their Rules and Regulations 6.1, if they get a complaint about a member of the Council, they are supposed to send it to outside counsel for a report. I wrote an email to them and asked them if they have sent that to outside counsel, and if they have, if they could forward it to me. I have not received a response to that for a month and a-half.

I wrote to the Minister of Justice and outlined the problems, and I have received no response. I asked…[the] new Minister of Justice, because David Lametti is no longer there -- if he was aware of the problems. And I informed him of the problems facing the judicial system, and I have not received a response back. So that’s kind of where we are…

I’ve got a criminal prosecution going forward, or hopefully going forward, against the lawyer that initiated this case against me because she knows the facts because I have informed her all the way along.

And in the affidavit that is in evidence before the court, they acknowledge that I would unlikely be willing to attend court, based on that evidence. And so, here we are, threatening me with 60 days of jail, where I have no rights. You can ignore everything that I say, all the arguments that I present. And I know, because it’s already being done, that everything will be ignored at the B.C. Court of Appeal arbitrarily, or not…

I have tried to communicate with the Kelowna Court Registry about registering my family claim here, but I can’t seem to get my information through their system. But I’m kind of used to it. I’m used to being denied because I’ve been denied at every single opportunity. I am doing my best. I am not here. I’m just -- you know, it leads to the community’s frustration with the judicial system, and eventually, to a feeling of contempt for the court proceedings, R. v. Ascot.

The prosecutor here, I believe, knows all the facts because I presented the FMEP with all the evidence. And I would say that it’s an abuse of process. But, you know, we can continue to argue this till the cows come home, but that’s my feeling and position…

the mom of the kid, my youngest child, just took the youngest from me -- took the youngest from my house three days ago. I can’t do anything about it…

From the court back in 2007, they took all my assets and left me with a debt of about half a million dollars…“The company has a value -- a share value of zero. But for the purposes of the divorce, we’re going to assign a value of $295,000 to the company that has a share value of zero because that’s what the company had in the shareholders loan account.” That’s how much the company owed me. The company with zero assets owes me $295,000, and that’s what I got.

I have had audits from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 from the CRA. My income is pretty much constant throughout. The problem that I’ve already outlined with you that, you know, I made these allegations before you, and I reported crimes in the judicial system, crimes by lawyers, crimes by judges, obstruction of justice by the Minister of Justice and judges and lawyers, and you gave me five years to pay. And generously, you tried to reduce the fines as much as possible. You didn’t find me not guilty, but I got five years to pay.

I made the same allegations or the same reports, basically, to FMEP in the past in 2007 and 2008, and I provided them the documentation of the fraud that William Westcott, the lawyer that was just in here, and their decision was to delay collection for five years and not report any of the crimes and not do anything. So my understanding is that fraud and corruption are always the exception to the rule of law.

That’s been my experience. That’s the evidence that I’m collecting from other people. That’s a problem for the constitutionality of the Judges Act. I know that the Canadian Judicial Council conduct process is not constitutional because citizens have absolutely zero rights because judges claim they have discretion on the acceptance of the transcript, and they can pull any random piece of evidence out and prefer that to the transcript.

So what are we basing anything on? What’s the appeal based on? The transcript…it’s an abusive system.

It’s been reported in the federal court as being abusive. The federal court has called the Canadian Judicial Council abusive. In their judgment of a judge, there’s been zero times that a complaint from a regular citizen has actually gone through the process. Zero. Six hundred and seventy-six complaints by the public. Zero get through. So I know that I have no rights and basically, I’m just here. You know, do I get down on my hands and knees and beg or something like that? You know, it’s demeaning.

THE COURT: …frankly, I’m the lowest level of court in this province…you’ve been before the Supreme Court. You’ve been before our Court of Appeal. And I appreciate it’s your right to file a constitutional challenge again before this court. And you’re right. I mean, I’ve heard you out. And to a large extent, my hands are tied. That’s the difficulty.

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: So, yes, you know, so that’s -- the problem is, is that I’ve disclosed now corruption up to the B.C. Court of Appeal, and the B.C. Court of Appeal said that… what did they say? It’s a conspiracy theory and it has no basis in reality. So I’m left with everything that I say, all the evidence that I have is irrelevant. That’s what they said as well, “You’re irrelevant”. And so, now that becomes binding on you, that you have to ignore all allegations of corruption, right? So I don’t know. You know, and I don’t know what to do to resolve it…

So let’s try to work out a way to solve this problem here today. I would say that, you know, this would cause disrepute to the judicial system to penalize me. I’ll look at your thing here. That it would be a grave injustice to order the imprisonment of the debtor, for starters.

[RULING RE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE]

[53] Mr. Holsworth's grounds of appeal on this appeal fundamentally repeat the arguments he has made, and which have been dismissed, in every court that has heard this matter. The Second Trial Judge was correct in concluding that his Charter application had no reasonable prospect of success. This was a proper exercise of a trial judge's “screening function” as described in R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31 at para. 38, which is entitled to deference on appeal…

I find that this Notice of Constitutional Question, at least in relation to the case before me, is "manifestly frivolous" as that phrase is defined in R. v. Haevischer, 2023 SCC

Back into the trial…

CNSL B. HIRD: Yes, Your Honour. This is a committal hearing today. It’s -- the onus is upon Mr. Holsworth to convince the court that he should not be incarcerated today. It’s not upon my client to show that he should be. It’s the onus upon him to show that he should not be incarcerated.

We are enforcing an order of the B.C. Supreme Court dated June 5th, 2019. That order imputed an income to him of $250,000 and fixed child support for two children at the sum of $2502 a month, commencing September 1st, 2018, and on the first day of each month thereafter…

So that’s what’s brought us here today, is the absolute lack of Mr. Holsworth’s ability to make any payments towards his maintenance obligation. I’ve just provided Mr. Holsworth with his account statement, which he’s promptly thrown on the floor.

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: Well, it has no meaning, right? Because you can create any fraudulent document that you want and I have no ability to dispute it.

CNSL B. HIRD: Your Honour, the arrears owing on the file, inclusive of interest and statutory fees owing to the provincial [indiscernible] government as of September 5th, $160,683.99…

Unless the court is satisfied at a committal hearing

(a) that the debtor has paid the full amount required under s. 21(1)(e);

(b) that there has been a change of circumstances of the debtor since the order was made under s. 21(1)(e)

…and that the change has resulted in the debtor’s inability to pay the full amount required under that section or (c), it would be a grave injustice to order the imprisonment of the debtor. The court shall, subject to (5), order the debtor to be imprisoned in accordance with the terms of the order made under s. 21(e)…

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Holsworth, do you want to present some evidence to the court?

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: I can’t trust a word this man says. He’s a lawyer.

THE COURT: Well, again, that may be the case.

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: Right.

THE COURT: Do you want to present some evidence?

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: Well, that’s what I’m doing…

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: Well, there’s a couple of things. You know, I did talk about that I wanted to present. There’s a couple of unanswered constitutional questions that were presented before the B.C. Court of Appeal that were never responded to…

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: There’s a -- one on the legal profession of B.C., whether or not it is constitutional because in a -- because they are saying that lawyers --

THE COURT: Mr. Holsworth. Mr. Holsworth --

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: -- can commit fraud.

THE COURT: -- I’m not going to -- I don’t want to hear about this anymore.

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: Well, I know you don’t want to hear about it, but that is the problem.

THE COURT: Well, and sir, I gave you an opportunity to address your constitutional argument and I’ve ruled on that. We’ve moved on to…

TREVOR HOLSWORTH; Well, that’s what’s changed. My inability to pay has not changed since 2007 when I had all my assets removed, all my rights removed, and then when the government proceeded to seize all my accounts, then I had nothing. So how do I prove that I have nothing?

THE COURT: So basically what you’re telling me is you had nothing then, you still have nothing, nothing’s changed in terms of your financial circumstances?

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: And the court order was the product of fraud.

THE COURT: All right. Well, then let’s --

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: So let’s go with the fraud, shall we?

THE COURT: No, Mr. Holsworth, we’re not…

[ Interesting the judge acknowledged that my previous arguments were fraud and this one is fraud so its a collateral attack and dismissed - the precedent in British Columbia is that fraud is “irrelevant” and a “conspiracy theory” ]

THE COURT: No, no, I appreciate that. Let me address, then, the third element of this test, that it would be a grave injustice to order the imprisonment of the debtor. I take it that’s your position, it would be a grave injustice?

A Certainly.

THE COURT: And again, well, tell me why that is.

A Well, because I’ve tried to access the court. I’ve been denied. I’ve tried to -- I can’t access the court. Here’s my financial statement that I tried to access -- provide to the court…But the other undue hardship circumstances that I include, that I kind of believe might be the reason why they didn’t accept it, is I put down,

TREVOR HOLSWORTH: …I did not collect any COVID benefits. I received no money from the government for anything. I had no driver’s licence for 18 months. These are the circumstances that have changed since the court order because FMEP seized my driver’s licence and my passport, which I still do not have. And the government -- and I mentioned in this thing the government seized all my bank accounts and other assets, and then I wrote down, ”I’m a prisoner. Help. I’m being abused. Help.”
So that’s what I put. It didn’t get accepted…

As far as my financial capacity to pay, I made this argument, and interestingly enough, the public prosecution decided to drop charges after hearing this, in the public interest.
In Holsworth v. Holsworth [2007] Judge Shaw decided that Kootenay Experience Ltd had a share value of zero, but for the purposes of divorce, a value of 295,000 based on the value owed to me from the shareholder’s loan account.
In Holsworth v. Holsworth [2007], Judge Shaw acknowledges a debt owed by Trevor Holsworth to William Holsworth in excess of $890,000 plus interest and costs but declined to apply the debt for the purposes of the settlement of the divorce.
Mr. Holsworth Senior collected all assets subsequent to the divorce except for the property in Nelson, on which he placed a mortgage for the remainder of the balance, which exceeds the value of the property by several hundred thousand dollars with interest of five per cent per annum payable, approximately 50,000 per annum…

the lawyer that represents my ex did include the correspondence that I placed before her, which discloses the problems in the justice system and also that I had no rights and also disclosed the fact that her lawyer -- her advice was that he’s on -- he’s not going to attend, he’s unlikely to attend, based on that evidence…also, the separation agreement that she provided was fraudulent. It included pages that are not in the original…

So my allegation is that the initial court order that this is based on is a fraud. I’ve attempted to access the court. I’ve attempted to initiate private prosecution through the Attorney General’s Office, but they have refused to engage, as they have in all matters dealing with me. So that’s -- and then then we had COVID hit. And what else has happened? Well, the government has seized everything. I did used to have a backcountry ski operation down near Ymir, and the government has seized that now. So, yes, I got nothing. And I got no means of getting anything, and I’m kind of stuck in this limbo land where I have no rights… I can’t borrow money. I can’t get a job. I spend a week on, a week off with my kids. So the idea that I’m not caring for my kids is just not applicable because I am with my kids every week, except for the times that my ex sees the kids, like she did for three months back in 2019 after she got this.

And she purported to the school that the court order that she had from Judge Brown was one of sole custody, but it’s not; it’s primary care…But the school wrote down in their documentation that she had sole custody and they refused access to me.

So I’ve tried to get some work too…I tried to apply for a job with…the National Self-Represented Litigants Project, supporting…self-represented litigants, but I wrote a really nice letter, and I exposed all my experience, but they declined to interview me because they’re sponsored by some law school, so some lawyer got the job instead.

But, yes, you know, I’ve done my best. I can’t really do much more than that. I care for my kids. I love my kids. You can ignore everything I say. I don’t know what else to say, you know. I -- what do I do? I provide evidence that I don’t -- what do I do, right? How can I prove that I don’t have something? Kootenay Experience assets were seized because of GST debts back in 2016 or something like that.

My personal bank account was seized in 2017…

That’s how my situation has changed…

It’s kind of up to you, really, I guess, Judge. You can make up whatever you want because that’s your discretion.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Holsworth

TREVOR HOLSWORH: I would like to file my exhibits too.

THE CLERK: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] sorry.

[REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT]

[16] The criteria I need to address under s. 23 of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act are threefold: first, have Mr. Holsworth's circumstances changed since the order of Judge Brown or the order of Justice Wilson were made; if so, then second, has that change resulted in Mr. Holsworth being unable to pay the full amount ordered by the court; and finally, would it be a grave injustice to imprison Mr. Holsworth?

[17] Several years have gone by since Justice Wilson's order and a year since Judge Brown's order. I will assume that Mr. Holsworth's circumstances have changed.

[18] Has that change resulted in Mr. Holsworth being unable to pay the full amount ordered by Judge Brown. Mr. Holsworth made it clear to this court and to Judge Brown that he could not even afford the $2,500 necessary to apply in Supreme Court to change his child support order. In other words, even at the time Judge Brown made the order in question, Mr. Holsworth's position is that he could not afford to comply with the court order. It follows, then, that no change in Mr. Holsworth's circumstances over the past years have made him unable to comply with Justice Wilson or Judge Brown's orders.

[19] The final consideration, then, is whether it would be a grave injustice to imprison Mr. Holsworth. Mr. Holsworth has given evidence with respect to his current circumstances and the steps he has taken to get back before Supreme Court in Kelowna to have his issues addressed. None of Mr. Holsworth's evidence convinces me

[23] When I consider all of the evidence before me, it is clear that Mr. Holsworth has not met the test set out in s. 23 of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. I conclude that it has not been proven that it would be a grave injustice to order the imprisonment of the debtor. I conclude that he is purposely arranging his finances to avoid paying the child support that has been ordered and, in fact, is purposely not going back to Supreme Court to challenge the order Justice Wilson made in 2019.

[24] Under all the circumstances, I order Mr. Holsworth be imprisoned for 80 days starting today.

These are the communications that I had with the AG Niki Sharma

These are the communications that I had with the Office of the Chief Justice of the Provincial Court for making a judicial complaint regarding the conduct of Justice Sicotte. I based them on my previous experiences and not about the conduct of this trial.

This is the brief that I submitted to Parliament regarding miscarriages of justice

This is the habeas corpus application that I made from Prison to the SCC

This is the story of my first experience with Justice Sicotte on July 16, 2021 where he was quite empathetic but then the Supreme Court and Appeal Court ruled against me which ordered the lower courts to ignore everything I said. The supreme court said my evidence was “irrelevant” and the BC Court of Appeal said they were a “conspiracy theory. This does not reflect reality.” It’s hard to know exactly what that means but denying the reality of my lived experience is the effect.

This is a brief story of my experience within the prison system

This is some of the communications that I with my children, their teacher and the principal.