A Constitutional Right at the Supreme Court of Canada
The origins of the writ of “habeas corpus” date back to times of the Magna Carta and function as a last check on the liberty of the citizen against arbitrary or illegal imprisonment.
Most often documented as a check by the Judiciary on the Executive conducting itself through the powers of police and prisons. In this instance I am requesting “habeas corpus” on the Judiciary as I assert they are governing arbitrarily, thus beyond their legitimate constitutional constraints in a “free and democratic society” as “guaranteed” by the Charter of Rights.
Can Judges judge their own conduct or are they in the conflict of interest, that no-one can be a judge in their own cause? Judicial independence is for the protection of the people, not judges. A failure to self-regulate requires Parliament, or the Citizens, to assert their authority, to check the legitimacy and constitutionality of the Judiciary. Justice is a public service to bring “peace, order and good government”, “that the strong not oppress the weak…” not a tool of oppression.
That would be evidence of Judicial Dictatorship, requiring the supremacy of Parliament and the People to be asserted. The Supreme Court itself, is a creation of the Legislature, an Act of Parliament.
I was incarcerated on September 7th until November 25th 2024.
(My historical context in the legal system.)
October 16th, 2023
Supreme Court of Canada
On the 24th of September I mailed a writ of Habeas Corpus…a letter acknowledging receipt would have been the appropriate response which I am requesting now in case that detail was overlooked, or information on procedures to access justice if an error was made on my part.
November 2nd, 2023
Supreme Court of Canada
”This will acknowledge receipt of your letter on September 29th, 2023.
I wish to inform you that the Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction under section 40 of the Supreme Court Act…”
November 9th, 2023
Thank you for your letter of Nov 2nd, 2023 acknowledging receipt of my Writ of Habeas Corpus that the Registry received on September 29th, 2023, which you label “a letter”. It is disturbing to the concept of good faith that it appears to have required my father contacting the Canadian High Commission in Australia in order to generate this response.
As the Canadian Judicial Council has written to me claiming that Federal Judges have a discretion in their acceptance of the official record of court, the transcript, and the BC Court of Appeal has called my appeal on this issue “a conspiracy theory. This does not reflect reality.” including the evidence of the AG/MOJ David Lametti refusing to respond to the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter s 24(1). A claim that the administration of Government is not bound by the guarantees of the Charter.
Further, the sentencing judge of the Provincial Court specifically stated that the Charter guarantees would not apply to a hearing and given that the transcript is claimed can be ignored arbitrarily and the rules of precedent further appeal is meaningless, and impossible, within the prison system.
I have notified every official…upon my incarceration my legal opinion as to the illegality of my detention and the supporting evidence. The administration of Fraser Regional Correctional Centre have been informed regarding my Habeas Corpus application to this Court…I can also confirm that all lawyers available within the prison system do not provide advice on Habeas Corpus. I have managed to find reference to the common law precedents from R v Gamble and Isbell…
“The basis of the application is that the applicant is unlawfully detained.”
“to provide a speedy inquiry into the legality of any imprisonment”
“be exercised with due regard to the constitutional duty mandated need to provide prompt and effective enforcement of Charter rights”
Parliament has authorized the processes of the legal administration for this Court to comply with in…the Supreme Court of Canada Act.
The legal protections of Habeas Corpus are Constitutionally enshrined in the Charter s 9, 10 and 24(1)
Please forward a filed copy of my writ of Habeas Corpus and the plan for moving this process forward or an immediate explanation of any deficiencies required by law. The absence of a response to my prior service does not generate good faith, trust in the processes of the Court, nor the Public right to access justice, the legitimate Constitutional purpose of the Court for Peace, Order and Good Government.
I note that the SCC determined in R v Gamble that “neither should [the courts] bind themselves by overly rigid rules about the availability of habeas corpus which may have the effect of denying applicants access to Courts to obtain Charter relief.”
The constitutionality of the Judges Act was questioned and served upon the Provincial and Federal AG's who “declined to participate” and the hearing Judge merely dismissed the application as a “collateral attack” in conflict with the decision in Morgentaler by Lamar and Dickson,
“Section 7 does impose upon courts a duty to review the substance of legislation once it has been determined that the legislation infringes an individuals right to life, liberty and security of the person.”
This was not done. The Judges Act completely ignores the impact of judicial misconduct upon those most vulnerable and affected. This breach in the Charter must be resolved to provide fundamental justice for Canadians. The Charter compliance report provided to Parliament by the AG/MOJ does not address these issues whatsoever and although debate and evidence was presented to Parliament in regards to these deficiencies the protections were ultimately not included in the Act.
Please acknowledge the receipt of this letter and the previous correspondence of October 10th, 2023
November 30th, 2023
For the purpose of future communications please update your records with this email…
I am in receipt of your November 2nd 2023 letter but nothing else.
December 4th 2023 Attempts to get legal advice upon release
“I had a judge purport that he could step out of the constraints of the Charter, if he determined that it was "a narrow issue", as argued by the Crown. Subsequently Judge incarcerated me for 80 days. I am alleging unlawful confinement and seeking legal advice regarding Habeas Corpus...”
Dec 5th, 2023
Thank you again for your interest in our firm. We are unfortunately unable to provide legal advice for your matter at this time.
We wish you all the best with this matter.
I selected the law firm due to their experience in habeas corpus applications at the SCC but not involving judicial misconduct but failures in the Corrections Branch.
January 22nd, 2024
Supreme Court of Canada
Thank you for your letter of December 15th, 2023. I wish to refer you to my correspondence which makes argument for the Application of a Writ of Habeas Corpus and pre-emptively provides argument to dismiss the requirement to Appeal within the Provincial Appeal Courts as "irrelevant" due to the fact that the Canadian Judicial Council claims that Judges have discretion in their acceptance of the official court record, the transcript and may within their authority prefer to accept the recollection of the Plaintiff, to protect her lawyer committing fraud on a court order.
Furthermore, that AG/MOJ is refusing to respond to the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter properly served and a Constitutional Question on that matter presented to Court has never been answered. That the BC Court of Appeal held this evidence in hand and dismisses the problem as a "conspiracy theory" that "does not reflect reality" when in fact, it does, despite the opinion of a judge.
These are decisions that require a judicial determination not an administrative dismissal and a claim of improper procedure. Habeas Corpus issues as of right where the government has not discharged its burden of proving legality, which up to the BC Court of Appeal has been denied. Proving, means with evidence, not someone's opinion. That decision also has to be reasonable and correct, from the perspective of the public.
A court of competent jurisdiction is one that has the power to create a remedy. Due to their previous rulings on the facts in this case none of the Courts in BC are competent. I cannot access justice in BC and that is causing miscarriages of justice, which is the Supreme Courts duty to resolve.
I have attached the reasons provided by the Provincial Court Judge where he demonstrates that he had to comply with the decision of the BC Court of Appeal which makes further Appeals within British Columbia irrelevant which would require an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada as the only Court to resolve the constitutional crisis.
The modern formulation of habeas corpus was confirmed most recently in Khela. To issue the writ, there is a three-step test,
"To be successful, an application for habeas corpus must satisfy the following criteria. First, the applicant must establish that he or she has been deprived of liberty. Once a deprivation of liberty is proven, the applicant must raise a legitimate ground upon which to question its legality. If the applicant has raised such a ground, the onus shifts to the respondent authorities to show that the deprivation of liberty was lawful."
The Court concluded that a failure to take account of evidence, or a reliance on unreliable evidence, will be fatal.
The principle of legality provides recourse against the particular evil of arbitrary power exercised by personal whim, an ever-present reality when powers are delegated, especially in closed institutions “administered according to their own logic and preferences."
"Courts should look to the entire record, evidence, and reasons to determine the legality of a decision on habeas corpus review."
Thomas Crowell, Habeas Corpus and Correctional Law 1977
Habeas corpus is not a discretionary remedy. The offer to appeal by the s 40 process is ridiculous as I would then, if and only if, the Court selects my case for the right to appeal, which appears to be arbitrary, as no reasons are provided, present the argument for Habeas Corpus, which you appear to claim authority to deny administratively. The denial of Habeas Corpus is unconstitutional.
The problem is further exacerbated by the conflict of interest inherent when the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court of Canada is also the Chair of the Canadian Judicial Council which is refusing to respond to communications regarding a failure to comply with their procedures. According to their Rules a complaint regarding a member of the Council must be presented by an independent counsel for an opinion which as I point out to Marc Giroux was not done by Norman Sabourin when he dismissed my complaint as an "abuse of process" and all subsequent communications have been refused.
Fundamentally it is the Supreme Court of Canada’s obligation to resolve this issue, not mine, in order for Canadians to trust the Judiciary. Unless force is deemed to be the justification relied upon in a purportedly “free and democratic society.” Access to Justice is a public service, a human and constitutional right and the duty of the SCC to provide for equality for all Canadians to create “Peace, Order and Good Government.”
You will of course understand that given the opinion provided by Justice Pigeon of the CJC that the Judiciary have discretion over the evidence that creates the record for all appeals that the appeal process is subject to the arbitrary whim of the appeal court judge which is contrary to the constitutional guarantees. On that basis your invitation to me to file an Application for Leave to Appeal is not accepted. The application that I have made is one of Habeas Corpus, for the legality of the imprisonment to be checked by a court of competent jurisdiction, which is a court that has not dismissed a documented failure in the rule of law as a conspiracy theory. which makes the legal system irrelevant to the needs of British Columbians to access justice.
I do understand the problem in finding a lawyer that will present the argument that my facts present as I have been denied legal advice on the basis of my evidence by every lawyer that I have contacted. That reality is reinforced by the fact that the Federal and Provincial AG's have refused to respond to the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter and a Constitutional Question on the Judges Act in regards to this situation. What happens to fairness and impartiality and equality before the law when lawyers refuse to represent, refuse to provide legal advice, and refuse to respond to Constitutional Questions?
The refusal at the BC Supreme Court to issue the Writ of Mandamus on the AG/MOJ [David Lametti] to deal with the issue or present the problem to Parliament and the denial of my lived experience by the BC Court of Appeal labelling my experience as a “conspiracy theory” and without providing a shred of evidence to refute states her judicial opinion, this "does not reflect reality". When, in fact, it does. Except if one believes that judicial opinion creates reality rather than merely reflects.
Unfortunately the Court Registry in British Columbia has denied access to justice by refusing to file, and after a year are still not complying with a court order to provide Court Audio. What do I do when the Registry is obstructing justice? It is not my responsibility to fix the legal system to meet its constitutional guarantee to provide “fundamental justice'“ and “fair and impartial trials”. How can a citizen of Canada access Justice when legal advice is denied, access to the Court Registry is denied, and access to the Court is subject to the exclusion of all evidence.
General Court of Appeal, &c.
101. The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, from Time to Time provide for the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of a General Court of Appeal for Canada, and for the Establishment of any additional Courts for the better Administration of the Laws of Canada
Thank you for complying with the constitutional duty to provide access to justice via Habeas Corpus.
From the Rules of the Canadian Judicial Council,
Parliamentary Supremacy v Judicial Dictatorship
“Fraud and Corruption are always the exception.”
Peter Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada
It’s an even older story. Habeas Corpus is part of the provisions in the Magna Carta.
Access to Justice is a Public Service, not a privilege. The Court is obstructing Justice.
I’m glad to see the Public and Members of Parliament starting to turn their mind to these matters.
Thanks for reading.