R. v. Hardy, 2022 BCPC 189

Citation: R. v. Hardy 2022 BCPC 189 Date: 20220901 File No: 30766-1 Registry: Prince Rupert IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. CAMERON HARDY RULING RE: ORGANIZED PSEUDO-LEGAL COMMERCIAL ARGUMENTS OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. PATTERSON Counsel for the Crown: K. Schille Appearing on his own behalf: Cameron Hardy Place of Hearing: Prince Rupert , B.C. Date of Hearing: September 1, 2022 Date of Judgment: September 1, 2022

[ 1 ] There were some documents provided to the court by the defendant, and I had an opportunity to review them, which is why I also had the opportunity to reflect upon what has become known in Canada -- and other parts of the world too -- as pseudo-legal arguments. And one of the interesting things about pseudo-legal arguments, regardless of whether one is of the detaxer or freeman of the land or sovereign citizen ideology/philosophy, is that there has not been a single case in Canada supporting this particular theory.

Judges are, by precedent, allowed to look at previous decisions of the court and decisions of a superior court are binding on me.

What that means is that superior courts have said that I may and should summarily dismiss these kind of arguments, and by summarily dismiss, that means not waste the taxpayers’ money, the court's time, your time, the prosecutor's time, the court clerk's time, or anyone else’s time, with an argument that has zero chance of success. [ 2 ] So in British Columbia we have a recent decision out of the Supreme Court by Justice Ball, and he says at paragraph 9 of his decision, and it's called R. v.

Trifunski , 2022 BCSC 609 : Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Arguments [9] This NOA is a classic example of what this and other courts have referred to as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (“OPCA”) as described and explained in Meads v. Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 [ Meads ] . These pseudo-legal arguments and “defences” have been repeatedly rejected by the courts of this province and this country. See: R. v. Millar , 2016 BCSC 2039 , aff’d 2019 BCCA 298 , as well as Watchel v. British Columbia , 2020 BCCA 100 and Meads .

And then at paragraph 10: [10] Also, a similar rejection of an OPCA was discussed in the recent case of R. v. Merrill , 2021 BCSC 1017 , a decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Basran, at para. 6. [ 3 ] The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench decision of R. v. Penner , 2018 MBQB 200 , is now starting to, for lack of a better term, get some traction. And I quote from the first three paragraphs of the decision of Justice Martin: INTRODUCTION [1] When is a human being a person? Shouldn’t a human being be able to escape a photo-radar ticket fine because The Highway Traffic Act C.C.S.M. c.

H60 (“ HTA ”) does not apply to humans, but rather only to persons? [2] These are the questions that vexed Mr. Penner, as agent for his wife, on appeal of a photo-radar speeding ticket. At the trial, a justice of the peace, a Crown attorney and the photo-radar operator all needed to be present. At the appeal, expanded to include a “constitutional question” and fresh evidence, the Crown felt compelled to file thorough responding materials. Staff, including the Crown, a clerk and judge were required to deal with Mr. Penner’s arguments. The expense to the system to litigate this issue, caused by Mr.

Penner, was unconscionable. The appeal was disposed of in under five minutes. These reasons took a bit more time but were done for a specific reason. [3] I write them not to convey any insightful legal analysis but to provide precedent for the many justices of the peace and provincial court judges who are increasingly facing these specious arguments, gussied up like legal briefs with all the accompanying bafflegab. Those judicial officers should feel confident that they can dismiss nonsensical submissions summarily.

And those promoting these points of view should know that their arguments will get the time and attention they deserve, little to none. [ 4 ] The Penner decision was referred to by Justice Marchand, as he then was, of our Supreme Court, in a case called R. v. August- Sjodin , 2020 BCSC 826 . Beginning at paragraph 11: [11] In his written and oral arguments, Mr. August-Sjodin repeats his pseudo-legal arguments. While I have every respect for Mr. August-Sjodin’s status and rights as an Indigenous person, his pseudo-legal beliefs are baseless and without merit. … [22] Finally, with respect to Mr.

August-Sjodin’s pseudo-legal arguments, it was completely appropriate for the judicial justice to summarily dismiss them: R. v. Penner , 2018 MBQB 200 at paras. 12-13 . Though Mr. August-Sjodin does not present as a “detaxer”, the essence of his arguments have been completely and repeatedly debunked by courts across the country, the leading case being Meads v. Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 . [ 5 ] Interestingly, a review of the Meads decision shows that over 50 percent of the cases referred to are in fact detaxer cases. Only about six or seven percent actually dealt with freemen of the land or similar type arguments.

But the net result is the same: whether one is referred to as “Cameron Hardy” or “A man known as Cameron Hardy,” or any other language that you desire to use is irrelevant to me, and is irrelevant to this court, and is irrelevant to the courts in Canada. What is relevant is that a human being stands charged with an offence. The Crown has a duty to prove that offence beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 6 ] So while I will not listen to any pseudo-legal arguments in this case, I will, as I do in every case, require the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the onus is on the Crown throughout.

There is zero onus on a defendant to prove their innocence. There is zero onus on a defendant to do anything other than hold the Crown to the burden that exists, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ 7 ] So I will not be filing the documents that you presented in this trial. I'm dismissing any kind of pseudo-legal argument regardless of what title you or anyone else may put on it. And I'm going to invite the prosecution to begin their case. If they can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then there will be a conviction. If they cannot prove it, there will be an acquittal. That is how our system works in Canada. And a lonely Provincial Court judge in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, is not going to go against all the precedent that tells him what he needs to do. (REASONS CONCLUDED)