R. v. Hardy, 2023 BCPC 122

Citation: R. v. Hardy 2023 BCPC 122 Date: 20230526 File No: 30766-1 Registry: Prince Rupert IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. CAMERON HARDY also known as A MAN KNOWN AS CAMERON HARDY ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. PATTERSON Counsel for the Crown: K.J. Schille Counsel for the Defendant: A. Turton, KC Place of Hearing: Prince Rupert , B.C. Dates of Hearing: April 18 and May 26, 2023

Date of Judgment: May 26, 2023 [ 1 ] THE COURT: These are my reasons for judgment. [ 2 ] On May 15, 2021, the BC Prosecution Service charged Hardy with a single count as follows: Cameron HARDY, on or about the 14th day of May, 2021, at or near Prince Rupert, in the Province of British Columbia, did resist or wilfully obstruct Cst. Kanil Youngman, Cst. Britney Doney and Cst. Chris Askey, peace officers in the execution of their duty, contrary to

Section 129 (

a) of the Criminal Code . [ 3 ] This court file's long and tortured history up to April 18, 2023, is set out in R. v. Hardy , 2023 BCPC 65 . [ 4 ] Cameron Hardy is self-represented and a disciple of the "Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Arguments" (OPCA) theory. As explained by him during earlier court proceedings, he is a freeman. He proclaims that he was created by the creative source. He claims to be a man of mankind, being something other than a human being. Simply put, he says that he is a man, a mankind, not some legal identity on a piece of paper that was created by man and owned by man.

Accordingly, in his mind, he is not a person or an individual, and therefore the courts of British Columbia hold no jurisdiction over him. He rejects the name Cameron Hardy. Instead, he self- identifies by various names, including “A Man Known As Cameron Hardy” and “A Man Commonly Called Cameron Hardy.” For my decision, I will refer to him simply as Hardy. [ 5 ] Under the heading Principles on page 6 of the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons , Canadian Judicial Council, September 2006, [i] the Canadian Judicial Council states: 4.

Judges and court administrators have no obligation to assist a self-represented person who is disrespectful, frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious, abusive, or making no reasonable effort to prepare their own case. [ 6 ] Nonetheless, the Court appointed amicus curiae in this case and endeavoured to ensure that Hardy received a fair and impartial trial. Hardy did not make any Charter applications.

Facts [ 7 ] At approximately 3:20 in the afternoon on May 14, 2021, Constable Britney Doney of the Prince Rupert RCMP, a peace officer within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code , responded to a request for assistance by her colleague Constable Kanil Youngman at the BC Liquor Store located at 100 - 2nd Avenue West, in Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Based on the information Constable Doney received, she understood she was responding to a non-emergency call involving two unknown males in the liquor store who refused to wear masks.

Constable Christopher Askey also responded to the request. [ 8 ] When Constable Doney arrived at the liquor store, she observed Constable Youngman speaking with a man standing on a lifted platform inside the store. She later identified the man as Cameron Hardy from his firearms licence, a Possession and Acquisition Licence. In addition to Hardy, several other people were in the liquor store, including a few employees. [ 9 ] Having received information that there were two unmasked men, Constable Doney spoke with a second man inside the liquor store.

She asked him what was happening, as she did not have many details. She could still hear bits and pieces of Constable Youngman conversing with Hardy, but she focused on speaking with the second man. [ 10 ] Constable Doney heard Hardy discussing the Constitution and how the liquor store was discriminating against him. She also heard Constable Youngman speaking to Hardy about proceeding civilly. [ 11 ] Not long after, Constable Doney heard Constable Youngman, in a raised tone of voice, arrest Hardy for mischief.

She observed Hardy stepping off the platform, after which Constable Youngman grabbed one of Hardy’s arms and started to escort him toward the liquor store’s exit door. Constable Askey assisted Constable Youngman by holding onto Hardy’s other arm. [ 12 ] Hardy began yelling, saying he did not consent to being arrested and the arrest was against the Constitution. Hardy repeated himself several times. [ 13 ] Constable Youngman and Constable Askey escorted Hardy to just before the exit doors when Hardy started to back up and pull away from them.

Constable Youngman and Constable Askey pushed Hardy up against the wall face-first. Then they began wrestling with Hardy for control of his arms, which they attempted to position in front of his body. [ 14 ] Constable Youngman managed to get one of Hardy’s wrists into a handcuff, despite Hardy struggling and pulling his arms toward the front of his body. At that point, Constable Doney joined in to assist her colleagues and told Hardy several times to stop resisting. [ 15 ] Hardy continued to struggle in an apparent attempt to avoid being handcuffed.

All three police officers were verballing demanding that Hardy stop resisting. Hardy continued to clench his fists and tried to pull away from the police officers. One of the police officers attempted unsuccessfully to sweep Hardy’s legs out from under him to get Hardy onto the floor. The police officers eventually got Hardy onto the floor when Constable Askey pulled him backwards. During the struggle, Hardy grabbed Constable Youngman’s wrist, ripping off the constable’s watch. The watch fell onto the floor while Hardy was being dragged onto the floor.

Hardy lost his balance and ended up lying on the floor on his stomach. Throughout the struggle, all three officers repeatedly told Hardy to stop resisting.

[ 16 ] With only one of Hardy’s wrists in a handcuff, Constable Askey tried to get Hardy’s other wrist out from underneath of Hardy. With Constable Doney’s assistance, Hardy’s second wrist was secured and placed into a handcuff. [ 17 ] Once Hardy was handcuffed, Constables Doney and Askey assisted him off the floor. They escorted Hardy outside the liquor store and walked him to Constable Doney’s police vehicle in the parking lot. Constable Youngman searched Hardy incidental to the arrest while Constables Doney and Askey pressed Hardy against the front of the police vehicle.

Hardy continued to resist the police officers by pushing backwards and yelling that he did not consent to being arrested. Although asked more than once, he also refused to give his name. [ 18 ] Once Constable Youngman had completed his search of Hardy, the police officers placed Hardy into the back of Constable Doney’s police vehicle. Constable Doney read Hardy his Charter rights and gave Hardy the police warning. At no point did Hardy say anything to the police officers to indicate that he was in pain or discomfort.

Constable Doney then transported Hardy to police cells. [ 19 ] The police officers subsequently identified Hardy at the police detachment using his firearms licence. Discussion [ 20 ] Hardy was self-represented throughout the trial, despite being urged multiple times to seek legal advice and consider getting a lawyer to represent him. [ 21 ] On April 18, 2023, while in the courthouse cells, he sat with his back to the video camera and had his fingers or hands covering his ears. He did not cross-exam the prosecution’s witness. [ 22 ] On May 26, 2023, the sheriffs brought Hardy into the courtroom.

Hardy maintained that he was present to press his claim for wrongs done to him, and he demanded a Trial by jury. [ 23 ] Soon after the prosecution had formally closed its case, I explained to Hardy that the first and most important principle of law applicable to every criminal case is the presumption of innocence.

I told him that he entered the proceedings presumed innocent, and the presumption of innocence remains throughout the case unless the prosecution, on the evidence put before the Court, satisfies me as the judge beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. [ 24 ] I also told Hardy that two rules flow from the presumption of innocence. One is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt. The other is that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

These rules are linked with the presumption of innocence to ensure that no innocent person is convicted. [ 25 ] I emphasized that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and never shifts. There is no burden on him to prove that he is innocent. He does not have to prove anything. [ 26 ] I explained what the expression "beyond a reasonable doubt" means and how a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. Instead, it is a doubt that arises logically from the evidence or an absence of evidence.

I confirmed that reasonable doubt is not based on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone involved in the proceedings. Rather, it is based on reason and common sense. [ 27 ] I noted that it is virtually impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty, and the prosecution is not required to do so. Such a standard would be impossibly high. [ 28 ] I confirmed that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to absolute certainty than probable guilt and that I must not find him guilty unless I am sure he is.

I confirmed that even if I believe he is probably guilty or likely guilty, that is insufficient. In such a situation, I must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty because the prosecution failed to satisfy me of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 29 ] When offered an opportunity to have the Court order that he be provided with a transcript of the proceedings at Trial on April 18, 2023, so that he could consider whether he wished to call defence evidence, Hardy declined.

He also refused when offered the opportunity of an adjournment to call other people as witnesses as part of the defence case. [ 30 ] Hardy did not present any defence evidence. [ 31 ] During her evidence in chief at trial, Constable Doney identified Hardy in the prisoner’s box as the man she dealt with on May 14, 2021. The BC Prosecution Service has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the man in Court today is the same man that Constable Doney, Constable Youngman and Constable Askey interacted with on May 14, 2021.

I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he, not his birth certificate, is Cameron Hardy. [ 32 ] I am satisfied that the events related by Constable Doney occurred in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, on May 14, 2021. [ 33 ] I do not doubt that Hardy knew he was dealing with police officers on May 14, 2021.

He declared several times that he did not consent to being arrested and the arrest was against the Constitution. [ 34 ] There is no substantial difference between "resist" and "obstruct." They create two different means of committing the offence, both involving interference with police officers engaged in their duty. The mens rea is the same. [ 35 ] On the whole of the evidence, I have no doubt that Hardy resisted or wilfully obstructed Constable Doney, Constable Youngman and Constable Askey, who were in the lawful execution of their duties. The obstruction was willful.

Hardy deliberately made it more difficult for the police officers to carry out their duties . He actively pulled away from them in an apparent attempt to avoid being arrested. [ 36 ] I find Hardy guilty as charged.

[ 37 ] That is my decision. (REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED) [i] //https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2020/Final-Statement-of-Principles-SRL.pdf (as of May 26, 2023)