r v. GLENN PATRICK BOGUE, 2021 QCCQ 17269

Barreau de Montréal c. Bogue 2021 QCCQ 17269 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL Criminal and Penal Division No: 500-61-515899-202 DATE: October 22, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PIERRE DUPRAS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ BARREAU DE MONTRÉAL Prosecutor v.

GLENN PATRICK BOGUE Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ DECISION ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The defendant who requested to be referred to as Spirit Warrior is charged with five counts of illegally practising law in relation to different files before the Court of Appeal of Québec at different dates in 2019. [ 2 ] The trial in this case is scheduled for December 13 th and 14 th next and the defendant presented this court with six preliminary motions.

These motions requesting orders from the Court are the following. • 1. An order that the trial be transferred to Gatineau; • 2. An order that the Barreau de Montréal provide a lawyer for Spirit Warrior; • 3. An order that Ottawa and Montréal are on unceded land; • 4. An order that the federal Crown be forced to consult with and protect Spirit Warrior; • 5. An order dismissing the charges; • 6. An order, in conjunction with ASMIN’s Tribunal, that Her Majesty in Right of Canada and Natalie Guertin [1] be added as defendants pursuant to indigenous laws, customs and tradition.

MOTIONS NUMBER 2 AND 4 [ 3 ] During the hearing, motions number 2 and 4 were first addressed. It was the opinion of the defendant that they were tied. The Court has already rejected the second motion in an oral judgment in the morning of the 25 th of June last. [ 4 ] Essentially, the Court considers that the defendant has made no demonstration of is impecuniousness.

The onus is a heavy one [2] , and no evidence was submitted to that effect. [ 5 ] Furthermore, on the necessity, the complexity and the fairness of the trial, let’s not forget that it is scheduled for two days and that only two witnesses are going to be presented by the Barreau, none of which are expert witnesses.

The evidence appears, at this stage, to be without particular complexity, does not seem to be of a highly technical nature and upon conviction, if that is the case, a fine is at stake. [ 6 ] But, above all, the defendant is a trained lawyer and the Court has had the chance to see him argue during the preliminary motions, there is no doubt in our mind that he is able to represent himself in this file. Worthy of mention is also the fact that the trial judge has a certain duty, albeit limited, to assist a person representing itself.

[ 7 ] Considering all these facts, the Court reiterates its rejection of motion number 2. [ 8 ] The fourth motion was that request that the Court order the federal Crown to consult with and protect Spirit Warrior. [ 9 ] It was submitted by the Barreau de Montréal that although the federal Crown was not noticed properly in this file, an attorney at the Crown office, Mr. Taylor Andreas, was copied with all the e-mails sent by the defendant. That assertion was not challenged by the defendant. [ 10 ] It appears that Mr.

Andreas has declined to be present because his position is that this matter does not concern the federal Crown. [ 11 ] The defendant relies, heavily can we say, on paragraph 72 of the Supreme Court case of Desautels [3] to support his motion.

Our reading of the duty to consult [4] does not include the obligation for the federal Crown to consult with and protect an individual such as the defendant charged with a provincial statutory offences relating to the illegal practice of law in our circumstances. [ 12 ] Further, the Cour du Québec has no jurisdiction to force the “intervention” of the federal Crown in a matter that clearly is of no concern to it. Accordingly, motion number 4 is rejected. MOTIONS NUMBER 1 AND 3 [ 13 ] Motion 1 is an application for the transfer of the trial proceedings in Gatineau.

It was the defendant’s proposition that motion number 1 and 3 were tied. Motion number 3 is that invitation made to order that Ottawa and Montréal are on unceded land. [ 14 ] The transfer of a trial is governed by sections 176 and 177 of the Code of Penal Proceeding of Québec, they read as follows: 176. On the application of either party, the judge may order, in the interests of justice, that the trial be held in another district. The clerk shall thereupon transmit the record to the office of the court of competent jurisdiction in the district designated in the order. 1987, c. 96, a. 176. 177.

Where an application for transfer is made by the defendant and is to the effect that the trial be held in the district of his residence, a judge having jurisdiction to try the proceedings in that district shall make the order for such transfer if he is satisfied that the change applied for is in the interests of justice, taking into account the costs of attendance that the witnesses to be summoned by the prosecutor as well as by the defendant will incur as a result of the change.

In addition, prior notice of the application must be served on the clerk of the court of competent jurisdiction in the judicial district where proceedings were instituted.

Where the order is made, it shall be served on the said clerk, who shall then transmit the record to the office of the court designated in the order. 1987, c. 96, a. 177. [ 15 ] Now, the defendant is a resident of Toronto, was it submitted, and the only reason he has set forth to support his motion is that it would be closer to his home and to the Crown. [ 16 ] While the mechanism of sections 176 and 177 are different, the key element seems to be the same that is the interest of justice. [ 17 ] On that topic let’s note that the witnesses for the prosecution are from the Montréal area, that Mr.

Cardin whose unsigned affidavit was offered at the outset by the defendant is also from the area. Then the Barreau de Montréal, it goes without saying, obviously has its offices in this district. [ 18 ] Case law established that “an application under

section 177 of the Code of Penal Procedure is not open to a person who resides outside the province of Québec [5] ”. [ 19 ] As far as

section 176 of the CPP is concerned the criteria of the interest of justice requires an exercise in judicial discretion based on the specific facts of the application. In our case, the Court sees no valid reasons to transfer the trial in Gatineau. Actually, it would only generate more costs and probably more delays with no foreseeable gain for anyone including the defendant. Motion 1 is rejected and the trial will be held in Montréal. [ 20 ] About motion number 3 regarding the unceded character of Ottawa and Montréal, the Court sees no relevance whatsoever of that request for an order with the case it has to decide. It is certainly not a demand within the spectrum of

section 174 of the Code of penal procedure that deals with the objects of preliminary motions nor is there, otherwise, any link, as tenuous as it may be, with the charges laid and our coming proceedings. [ 21 ] Not only is there no relevance to our case but the evidence adduced is at most fragmentary and shows very little reliability. For instance, no witnesses were sworn in and no sworn affidavits were filed.

Only certain documents of very limited weight were tendered by the defendant. [ 22 ] The demand is made “In the Provincial Court of Québec in conjunction with the ASMIN [6] and Kinakwii Indigenous Tribunal." [7] The whole approach resembles the one described by the Superior Court of justice of Ontario as recently as March 2021 in the case of Mukwa [8] .

The Plaintiffs’ Claims Regarding Indigenous Rights [17] At the hearing, Chief Grand Wabiska Mukwa indicated that he, as Chief Justice of his Indigenous Nation, was participating in the hearing together with the plaintiffs whose rights he states are being attacked. [18] The title of proceedings for the plaintiffs’ claim and amended claim state that the pleadings are issued in conjunction with “ASKIT” and “Kinakwii Indigenous Tribunal.” [19] The evidence before me indicates that Chief Wabiska’s email address, which includes the phrase “askit4equity,” is linked to a website advertising the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation (“ASMIN”), which claims to be one of the oldest unsurrendered, untreatied matriarchal Indigenous Nations of Turtle Island.

For $225, anyone can become a member of the ASMIN nation on filling out an application. [20] The Kinakwii National website suggests that Kinakwii Nation was founded by William Allan of the Baldwin family and Jon of the Maskell family under certain notices which are in evidence before me.

For $300 annually, anyone can become a member of the Kinakwii Nation on filling out an application. [21] Neither the ASMIN nor the Kinakwii Nation are recognized as a First Nation on a comprehensive list of all First Nations across Canada that is compiled by Crown-Indigenous Relations, Northern Affairs Canada, and Indigenous Services Canada. [22] The statement of claim and written argument make claims including “Land Claim in Trespass,” which is unaccompanied by any pleading of material facts to support it.

The plaintiffs’ allegations about a land claim in trespass is seemingly conflated with their reliance on the test for Aboriginal Title, set out in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 , [2014] 2 S.C.R. 257 . […] [24] The plaintiffs adduced no affidavit evidence on the motion to provide facts in support of the claims they allege.

They made no claim that the documents in their exhibit books were admissible on another basis, although to the extent some of them are academic articles, case law, statutes, or public documents, I recognize I can make use of them. [25] While the plaintiffs deny that their claims challenge Canadian sovereignty, they also make claims in quo warranto, including seeking production of a certified copy of the British North America Act, 1867 , seeking proof that the British North America Act, 1867 was passed by a lawful quorum, and seeking proof that the British North America Act, 1867 was not repealed in 1893. [26] Claims of this nature are a challenge to Canadian sovereignty, validly enacted legislation, constitutional documents, and land surrenders.

They are non-justiciable: ro: ri: wi: io v. Canada Attorney General), 2006 CarswellOnt 8694 (Ont. S.C.J.) , at paras. 7-9 , aff’d 2007 ONCA 100 ; Commanda v. Canada, 2018 FC 189 , at para. 13 . [27] Other claims advanced by the plaintiffs, in particular in response to FCC’s claim to take possession of the lands secured by the mortgages at issue, and for payment on the debt, include claims that FCC has printed money, without having any legal right to do so.

They argue that FCC is not a bank, but a financial institution, and that it has not loaned the plaintiffs money, but traded in securities in the form of promissory notes from the plaintiffs. They argue that the promissory notes are securities over which the plaintiffs never released their interest, making the plaintiffs the creditors of those notes. They argue that the mortgage is a British device to obtain Aboriginal Title. They also argue that FCC is barred by s. 89 of the Indian Act from seizing the land in question, because it is reserved to ASMIN because it is unceded.

While they argue that Ottawa, Toronto, and St. Thomas are unceded, and the mortgages in question here relate to properties in Langton and Vienna, they argue that the boundary of the unceded land is a triable issue. None of these arguments are pleaded. The plaintiffs refer to some academic articles and interviews with academics in support of these arguments, but no evidence. [28] I agree with Myers J.’s assessment that the plaintiffs’ claim is designed in furtherance of illegitimate litigation tactics commonly referred to as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments, as described in Meads v.

Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 . [29] I decline to entertain the plaintiffs’ organized pseudolegal commercial arguments. [ 23 ] The evidence before the Superior Court of Ontario, it is trite to say, is not before the Cour du Québec and we don’t intend to make any use of it except to mention that while the defendant was arguing on the motions, he made comments on some of the information found in the judgment.

In fact, in a limited way, he adopted certain propositions while insisting that the case was being appealed. [ 24 ] For example, he confirmed the information found at paragraphs 19 and 20 that anyone could become a member of ASMIN or the Kinakwii nation.

In fact he said that they can name whoever they want as members. [ 25 ] He also acknowledged that neither ASMIN nor the Kinakwii nation were on the list of recognized First Nations across Canada that is compiled by Crown-Indigenous Relations, Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, but proposed to file another document where they appear [9] . [ 26 ] Finally, on that topic, the motion will be rejected, first and foremost, on the basis of its lack of relevance in this file and also for reasons regarding the non-existence of any real evidentiary basis to support it.

MOTION NUMBER 5 [ 27 ] Motion number 5 is a motion to have all charges dismissed. Actually, the defendant wished to produce evidence in support of his defence to the merits of the case before the prosecution has had a chance to present its evidence. He wanted the Court to reject the

charges without giving the prosecution a chance to present the evidence it has in support of the charges. [ 28 ]

Section 210 of the Code of Penal proceeding was explained to the defendant and the Court told him that it was not going to dismiss the charges before hearing the evidence for the Barreau. [ 29 ] Motion number 5 is rejected. MOTION NUMBER 6 [ 30 ] This last motion is about an order that in conjunction with ASMIN’s tribunal [10] , that Her Majesty in Right of Canada and Nathalie Guertin be added as defendants, pursuant to indigenous laws, customs and traditions.

Me Guertin, according to the defendant is to be held personally responsible in particular for the failure to produce a certain treaty [11] . [ 31 ] The Court asked the defendant explanations on what he meant by adding defendants.

Essentially, what he said is that he wanted the Court to transfer the proceedings in this file to an indigenous tribunal in line with the philosophy of Askit and, within the land and trespass counterclaim for what amounts to eastern Canada, add Me Guertin and the Queen as defendants. [ 32 ] The Court will do nothing of that, the sixth motion is rejected. ________________________________ FOR THESE REASONS, all the preliminary motions presented by the defendant are rejected; THE COURT ORDERS THE PARTIES to be present in the Montréal court house on the 13 th and 14 th of December 2021 for the trial in this matter. __________________________________ PIERRE DUPRAS J.C.Q.

Me Nathalie Guertin for the Barreau de Montréal Mr. Glenn Patrick Bogue aka Spirit Warrior, appearing for himself Date of hearing: June 25, 2021