A Right without A Remedy
Serving the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter s 24(1) on the Members of Parliament.
REMEMBRANCE DAY NOVEMBER 11, 2025
SERVICE TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL NOTICE AND PARLIAMENTARY DUTY
This Notice formally invokes the constitutional duty of Members of Parliament under Section 24(1) of the Charter and Section 99 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Government of Canada is operating in manifest illegality, documented through Criminal Code ss. 122, 139(2), and 423.1 violations.
Parliament is the only remaining court of competent jurisdiction when the Judicial and the Executive branches coordinate to suppress constitutional accountability.
Each Member’s response—or refusal—forms part of the constitutional record determining whether they uphold their oath of office or become accessories to its violation.
NOTICE OF SERVICE CHARTER SECTION 24(1)
This is a formal service of the enforcement procedure under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 24(1):
“Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.”
Due to the failure of the Minister of Justice to respond and enforce the Charter Section 24(1) as served on March 3, 2020. When courts claim absolute discretion that renders constitutional rights unenforceable, Parliament becomes the only forum of competent jurisdiction capable of restoring constitutional compliance.
I am hereby serving Parliament directly with this Charter enforcement procedure, as the executive and judicial branches have systematically refused to provide the remedies the Constitution guarantees.
The only court of competent jurisdiction to judge the judges who judge the judges to check for the constitutional standard of “good behavior” in accordance with Section 99 of the British North America Act 1867 is Parliament.
I. CHARTER RIGHTS VIOLATED
The following Charter rights have been systematically violated:
Section 7 - Life, Liberty and Security of the Person:
Judge in a conflict of interest as appointed by David Lametti, but failed to appear on February 14, 2022, for a mandamus decision compelling ministerial accountability for judicial conduct and instead the government invoked the Emergencies Act.
Incarceration following constitutional challenges and habeas corpus denial.
The Minister of Justice, Judiciary and the Canadian Judicial Council refuse to investigate these violations, eliminating the remedy.
Section 2(b) - Freedom of Expression:
Systematic intimidation of justice system participants challenging government conduct
Coordination across institutions to suppress constitutional complaints
Section 15 - Equality Before and Under Law:
Judges granted absolute immunity from accountability, while citizens have no remedy
The legal profession controls all three branches of government, eliminating meaningful oversight
II. COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION
When Charter rights are violated by judicial misconduct, no court can adjudicate without a conflict of interest:
Lower courts cannot review judges due to subordinate position creating conflict
Supreme Court will not review itself or judicial colleagues so denied habeas corpus.
Minister of Justice refused to respond to Enforcement Procedure, a failure of “good faith”
Constitution Act, 1867, Section 99 vests Parliament with authority to remove judges for failure of “good behaviour” by Address of Senate and House of Commons and the Governor General.
Charter Section 24(1) requires a remedy from a competent jurisdiction when rights are violated.
Parliament is the only court competent to adjudicate judicial misconduct.
Re Manitoba Language Rights (1985 SCC 50): Unconstitutional acts are void ab initio - invalid from the beginning, not from the moment courts declare them void.
Roncarelli v. Duplessis [1959] S.C.R. 121: No official, however high, stands above the law. “There is no such thing as absolute and untrammelled discretion.”
Crevier v. Quebec [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220: Judicial independence cannot extinguish judicial accountability. Independence exists to serve justice, not protect judicial misconduct.
Westminster Parliamentary Framework:
Constitution Act, 1867, Preamble: Canada shall have “a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom”, embracing responsible government within a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.
Section 91: Parliament has authority to make laws for “Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada.”
Separation of Powers: The Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary have distinct institutional capacities and complementary roles. “All three branches have distinct institutional capacities and play critical and complementary roles in our constitutional democracy” (Criminal Lawyers’ Association, 2013 SCC 43).
Ministerial Accountability:
Cosgrove v. Canadian Judicial Council (2007 FCA 103): “Judicial independence does not require that the conduct of judges be immune from scrutiny by the legislative and executive branches of government. On the contrary, an appropriate regime for the review of judicial conduct is essential to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary.” The Minister’s discretion regarding judicial accountability is “constrained by the constitutional obligation to act in good faith, objectively, independently and with a view to safeguarding the public interest.”
Duties of the Minister of Justice: The Minister of Justice serves as “interlocutor between the judicial branch and the executive and legislative branches of government”, a constitutional duty that eliminates discretion when judicial misconduct implicates democratic governance. Anne McLellan.
Department of Justice Act, s. 4: The Minister “shall (a) see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with law.”
III. REMEDY DEMANDED
Non-confidence vote in the Government of Canada.
The Government operates in manifest illegality:
Criminal Code Section 139(2): Obstruction of justice. Trudeau’s prorogation to eliminate accountability; Carney’s continuation without remedying breaches.
Criminal Code Section 122: Breach of trust by public officers both Minister of Justice David Lametti and Arif Virani refusing constitutional duties; Carney rewarding obstruction; Governor General accepting unconstitutional advice
Criminal Code Section 423.1: Intimidation of justice system participants through systematic state retaliation against constitutional challenges.
Parliament cannot lawfully extend confidence to a government engaged in manifest illegality without becoming complicit in that criminality.
IV. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF REFUSAL
If Members of Parliament vote confidence without responding to this constitutional procedure:
Violation of Charter Section 24(1): Refusal to provide remedy when competent jurisdiction invoked
Accessory After the Fact: Funding documented Criminal Code violations after formal notice
Breach of Oath of Office: Sworn duty to uphold the Constitution violated by funding its systematic violation
Creation of Conditions Compelling Rebellion: Destruction of trust required for peaceful governance as stated in the Preamble to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Parliamentary privilege does not shield Members from being accessories to Criminal Code violations. Immunity protects parliamentary speech and procedure, not funding documented criminality after a formal constitutional notice.
V. FORMAL DEMAND
Each Member of Parliament is hereby formally served with this constitutional procedure and required to:
Acknowledge receipt of this Charter Section 24(1) enforcement procedure
Investigate evidence of systematic Charter violations affecting all Canadians
Discharge constitutional duty under Section 99 to address judicial misconduct
Vote of non-confidence in the government operating in manifest illegality
Failure to respond constitutes:
Refusal of Charter remedy Section 24(1) violation
Complicity in ongoing Criminal Code violations
Breach of constitutional oath
Abandonment of duty to maintain trust, preventing rebellion
VI. DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE
This service is accompanied by a comprehensive letter detailing:
Prior communications to all Members of Parliament regarding non-confidence in former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau September 9, 2024
My application to the Federal Court of Appeal on the prorogation of Parliament.
Evidence of coordination across all branches of government
Legal framework for parliamentary duty
Constitutional consequences of inaction
VII. SERVICE CONFIRMATION
This Notice is served on November 11, 2025, by:
Electronic transmission to all Members of Parliament
Public posting establishing a formal record
Service is complete, and a constitutional duty is engaged.
VIII. LEGAL CHARACTER OF THIS NOTICE
This is a constitutional service under section 24(1) of the Charter and section 99 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Your response, or refusal, forms part of the evidentiary record establishing whether Parliament remains a lawful instrument of the Constitution or has become accessory to its breach.
The burden of proof is on the government to justify its authority. There has never been any attempt to provide that justification. Authority that cannot justify itself must be dismantled.
“Authority, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate, and the burden of proof is on those in authority. If this burden can’t be met, the authority in question should be dismantled.”
Noam Chomsky
A right without a remedy is no right at all. Denial of a charter right to a fair and impartial trial is a constitutional breach by the Judiciary that requires a remedy to repair the breach from Parliament.
This has been cruel and unusual punishment.