R. v. Hardy, 2023 BCPC 65

Citation: R. v. Hardy 2023 BCPC 65 Date: 20230418 File No: 30766-2 Registry: Prince Rupert IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. CAMERON HARDY also known as A MAN KNOWN AS CAMERON HARDY REASONS FOR SENTENCE (CONTEMPT OF COURT) OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. PATTERSON Counsel for the Crown: K. Schille Appearing on his own behalf: Cameron Hardy also known as A Man Known As Cameron Hardy Amicus Curiae: A. Turton, K.C. Place of Hearing: Prince Rupert , B.C. Date of Hearing: September 1, 2, 9, 2022; and April; 18, 2023 Date of Judgment: April 18, 2023

[1] On September 1, 2022, day one of a scheduled one-and-a-half day trial, I found 46-year-old Cameron Hardy guilty of in faciecontempt of court, otherwise known as contempt in the face of the court. [2] He is a disciple of "Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Arguments" (OPCA) theory. As explained by him, he is a freeman. Heproclaims 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. [3] Even if I am wrong about Hardy’s legal name or his status as the defendant on the substantive matter, today, I am sentencing theperson who was standing in front of the court on September 1, 2022, who committed contempt in the face of the court. I. INTRODUCTION [4] The courts of British Columbia are legitimate, or they are not. There is no middle ground.

There are no shades of grey.Unfortunately for Hardy, the courts of British Columbia, including the Provincial Court of British Columbia, are legitimate. [5] British Columbia and Canadian laws apply to Hardy, no matter how he identifies, what words he uses to describe himself, or hispolitical orientation. The criminal law, and the procedures that govern its implementation, are part of the law of British Columbia andCanada and apply to all.

Opting out is not an option. [6] As a result of his refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the court, heed court orders and directions, and participate in the trialprocess, Hardy finds himself before the court for sentencing for contempt of court. [7] The superior courts and s. 9 of the Criminal Code recognize the authority of a Provincial Court judge to forego the formaltrappings of a criminal trial and summarily punish for in facie contempt of court. [8] One leading in facie contempt of court case is R. v. B.K., (SCC).

As set out by Justice Major (in dissent) inB.K., 26 I agree with the caution expressed by Lord Denning in Balogh that the power of

summary punishment is a great but necessary onethat is to be used with scrupulous care. [9] In the present case, because of Hardy’s behaviour and flagrant disregard for the directions and order of the court, there existedan urgent and imperative need to utilize the

summary contempt procedure on day one of his substantive trial. Specifically, Hardy’srefusal to follow the court's directions and order was deliberate and premeditated, as evidenced by the written script he had in hispossession and read to the court. He undertook a calculated and intentional course of action, as he had on previous court occasions,specifically to thwart the court from proceeding with his trial. He maintained his behaviour despite being encouraged to engage legalcounsel and being told of his actions' potential consequences. His conduct was contemptuous of the court and the administration ofjustice.

II. OPCA ARGUMENTS [10] As stated on page 764 in Enjoy The Silence: Pseudolaw At The Supreme Court of Canada[1]: Because pseudolaw has no actual validity, OPCA litigants by definition abuse court processes when they advance these ideas.Furthermore, Canadian case law on this subject is now highly developed. Post-Meads, an OPCA litigant is unlikely to enter court, letalone an appeal court, unaware that the ideas he or she intends to argue have been the target of strong court criticism.

Nevertheless, some OPCA litigants’ belief in pseudolaw is apparently sincere…Social scientists who have investigated these populationsconfirm there are true believers in this community who are driven by a combination of conspiratorial and political beliefs, reinforced in akind of social echo chamber. When viewed exclusively from a government and court perspective, pseudolaw is nothing but a waste of state and institutional resources.That perspective misses something important.

Pseudolaw leads to self-inflicted injury by those who advance these toxic ideas, includingincreased litigation damages and costs, criminal sanctions, psychiatric detention, foreclosed homes, and broken families. In a very realsense, OPCA litigants are the victims of the conman gurus who sell supposed secrets to the real but concealed law. Worse, OPCAtheories authorize unorthodox and illegal actions against government, police, and court workers, including violence. Pseudolaw is a form of legal quackery or snake oil.

Much as doctors and scientists are the most effective critics of pseudomedical andpseudoscience frauds, courts are the expert bodies logically and functionally positioned to refute OPCA misconceptions with clear,substantive, and responsive court decisions. [11] Whether Hardy is a “true believer” or simply an “opportunist” using OPCA to delay and disrupt the court process, his reliance onthe discredited OPCA theory clearly contributed to his contemptuous behaviour on September 1, 2022. And even though no OPCAdefence has been successful on its merits – see R. v. Hardy, 2007 BCCA 523 and R. v.

Hardy, 2007 BCSC 125, for examples of how anOPCA defendant was successful on appeal because the Crown did not prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt at the trial court stage –the courts are still having to deal on a regular and on-going basis with civil court litigants and criminal defendants who embrace OPCAtheory.

So, in light of the zero percent chance of success on the merits in the courts, why do people still espouse OPCA theory? [12] In Overcoming Knowledge Resistance: A Systematic Review of Experimental Studies,[2] the authors state: A well-known fact is that people surprisingly often believe in things that are simply not true. For example, the public stance on climate

change in the US has become increasingly contentious (Leshner, 2015; van der Linden, 2015), and many believe that vaccination has negative health effects (Larson et al., 2016). Such unfounded beliefs predict a range of maladaptive perceptions and behaviors, including poor health choices, climate change denial, and decreased civic virtue (Grebe & Narrrass, 2012; Jolley & Douglas, 20l4). An obvious question then is why people, in this era of information abundance, hold beliefs that contradict reason and rigorous observation.

While there is little doubt that humans are capable of rational thinking, research has made clear that we often don't form our beliefs by a rational weighing of evidence and data. Rather, research shows that our perceptions,

interpretations, and beliefs about the world are strongly influenced by our previous beliefs, feelings, and personal motives to view the world in one way rather than the other. Thus, people selectively attend to information consistent with their interests or previous beliefs, interpret neutral information or evidence that counter their attitudes in a belief confirming manner, and distort or selectively remember objective facts in a way that support their attitudes and decisions. Hence our reasoning is often motivated by desires to view the world as we expect or want it to be (for an overview, see Kunda, 1999).

While modern people thus in principle have access to more knowledge than ever before, our inherent mode of thinking continues to make us susceptible to erroneous conclusions and false beliefs. This type of motivated reasoning is an important factor behind misconceptions that helps explain knowledge resistance. [ 13 ] I may never understand the true reason Hardy has acted in the manner he has. Nonetheless, he has relied upon OPCA theory misinformation to delay and disrupt his court proceedings.

He relied upon and spread his OPCA disinformation intending to harm or deceive the court and the administration of justice. [ 14 ] As with the defendant in R. v. Kuleba , 2021 ONSC 1016 , Hardy’s stubbornly wrong reliance on the OPCA theory he advanced caused him to reject opportunities provided to him by the court. [ 15 ] Concerning OPCA theory, I repeat what I said in paragraph 1 of Ruling Re: Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Arguments , in R. v. Hardy , 2022 BCPC 189 , …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. [ 16 ] As a Provincial Court judge, I am bound by precedent. I also pay heed to persuasive case law from outside of British Columbia. Cases such as R. v. Trifunski , 2022 BCSC 609 , Parhar v. British Columbia (Attorney General) , 2021 BCSC 700 , R. v. Merrill , 2021 BCSC 1017 , R. v.

August-Sjodin , 2020 BCSC 826 , R. v. Ciciarelli , 2019 ONSC 6719 , R. v. Penner , 2018 MBQB 200 , R. v. Jacobi , 2017 BCSC 1106 , R. v. Petrie , 2012 BCSC 2110 , and R. v. Lindsay , 2011 BCCA 99 , have considered the issues already. OPCA litigants cannot succeed when relying upon their OPCA theory as legally sound in Canadian courts. The case law makes it clear that the arguments and philosophies being advanced by Hardy have no legal authority and are nonsensical. Accordingly, I refused to re-litigate OPCA claims and engage with Hardy concerning OPCA contentions. [ 17 ] In the leading case of Meads v.

Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 , Associate Chief Justice Rooke of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench said the following about courts’ responses to OPCA cases: [586] Canadian courts have adopted a variety and range of responses to OPCA litigants and litigation.

Any judge who faces OPCA litigation should consider deployment of all tools in this arsenal, and others that may be developed for this difficult litigant category. [ 18 ] I am aware of the debate over whether OPCA-type defendants and litigants are delusional and suffering from a type of mental illness versus being anti-government ideologists, expressing their political philosophies in an unorthodox manner.

The temptation is to lean towards believing some OPCA-type defendants and litigants have a form of mental illness when one observes how people like Hardy, confronted with the reality that their position cannot win, still carry on with their OPCA-type contentions and behaviour. [ 19 ] On pages 1174-5 in After The Hammer: Six Years of Meads v. Meads [3] , Donald J. Netolitzky, author and legal researcher, addresses the issue head-on: The Meads OPCA indicia serve another useful role not suggested in that decision.

Psychiatric investigation of Freemen and Sovereign Citizens has concluded adherence to pseudolaw conspiracies is an expression of extreme political beliefs, reinforced in small introspective social communities. However, the peculiar formulaic expression of these ideas mimics delusion. That has resulted in misdiagnosis of these persons as mentally ill. OPCA ideas such as the “Strawman” duality have been misidentified as a mental health issue, rather than pseudolaw. Court-ordered psychiatric examinations and detentions may result.

The Meads OPCA indicia are therefore a helpful resource to distinguish between persons who litigate because of mental illness versus anti-government ideology expressed in an unorthodox manner. [ 20 ] I have not ordered a psychiatric assessment for Hardy, finding him intelligent, albeit an anti-government ideologist. He understands the difference between right and wrong.

He has merely selected wrong over right. [ 21 ] Having rejected mental health issues playing a role in Hardy’s disruptive behaviour and reliance on OPCA theory, I next consider how misinformation has contributed to Hardy’s contempt of court. [ 22 ] OPCA theory falls into the category of misinformation, defined on page 13 in The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction , [4] as “any informat ion that turns out to be false.” Scholarly articles such as After The Hammer: Six Years of Meads v.

Meads , The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction and Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth" Era [5] provide context to the reality that individuals, despite all evidence to the contrary, continue to rely upon misinformation, leading to poor judgement and decision-making. It is the way for OPCA theory

proponents. [ 23 ] It seems that phraseology such as “post-truth" and “fake news" has become increasingly prevalent in public discourse . As a court system, we need to recognize how the growing abundance of misinformation influences people in the political, technological, and societal context, including the courtroom. Regarding OPCA theory proponents, we need to develop a concrete methodology to deal with them once rationale thought and societal norms have been rejected by the OPCA theory proponent.

After all, if left unchecked, OPCA theory can and will harm the court system, as evidenced by Hardy’s success at turning what should have been a one to two-day trial into a costly and time-consuming exercise that has morphed into two separate files: the substantive trial file and the contempt of court file. [ 24 ] In trying to understand Hardy’s rationale for his contempt of court, I appreciate the warning given on pages 13 and 14 in The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction : The psychology and history of misinformation cannot be fully grasped without taking into account contemporary technology.

Misinformation helped bring Roman emperors to power, who used messages on coins as a form of mass communication, and Nazi propaganda heavily relied on the printed press, radio and cinema. Today, misinformation campaigns can leverage digital infrastructure that is unparalleled in its reach. The internet reaches billions of individuals and enables senders to tailor persuasive messages to the specific psychological profiles of individual users.

Moreover, social media users’ exposure to information that challenges their worldviews can be limited when communication environments foster confirmation of previous beliefs — so-called echo chambers. Although there is some controversy about echo chambers and their impact on people’s beliefs and behaviours, the internet is an ideal medium for the fast spread of falsehoods at the expense of accurate information.

However, the prevalence of misinformation cannot be attributed only to technology: conventional efforts to combat misinformation have also not been as successful as hoped — these include educational efforts that focus on merely conveying factual knowledge and corrective efforts that merely retract misinformation. For decades, science communication has relied on an information deficit model when responding to misinformation, focusing on people’s misunderstanding of, or lack of access to, facts. Thus, a thorough and accessible explanation of facts should overcome the impact of misinformation.

However, the information deficit model ignores the cognitive, social and affective drivers of attitude formation and truth judgements. For example, some individuals deny the existence of climate change or reject vaccinations despite being aware of a scientific consensus to the contrary. This rejection of science is not the result of mere ignorance but is driven by factors such as conspiratorial mentality, fears, identity expression and motivated reasoning — reasoning driven more by personal or moral values than objective evidence.

Thus, to understand the psychology of misinformation and how it might be countered, it is essential to consider the cognitive architecture and social context of individual decision makers. ….. Different types of misinformation exist — for example, misinformation that goes against scientific consensus or misinformation that contradicts simple, objectively true facts. Moreover, the term disinformation is often specifically used for the subset of misinformation that is spread intentionally.

More research is needed on the extent to which different types of misinformation might be associated with differential psychological impacts and barriers for revision, and to establish the extent to which people infer intentionality and how this might affect their processing of the false information. [ 25 ] The observations of Justice Graesser in A.V.I. v. M.H.V.B. , 2020 ABQB 790 , a recent case dealing with a defendant named Robinson who espoused OPCA and " Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion" (MCLR) theory, hold in Hardy’s case: 52 The consequences of contempt are not trivial.

In Fearn v Canada Customs , 2014 ABQB 114 , and in particular paragraphs 215-256, the Court concluded that gurus who promote OPCA schemes that purportedly defeat legitimate court authority are engaged in criminal contempt of court. 53 This may appear to be the use of a sledgehammer to crush an ant. I would instead use the analogy of an inoculation to stop a virus. OPCA and MCLR gurus harm people. Ms. Robinson has already harmed MHVB and her family. These gurus teach illusions that will predictably fail.

They promise much, but their clientele gets less than nothing. 54 These schemes are nothing more than cons, led by people who rely and feed on the oft-quoted statement attributed to P.T. Barnum (of circus fame): a sucker is born every minute. That is as true now as it was when spoken more than 150 years ago. The Courts are not suckers.

And the Courts will not be intimidated. [ 26 ] Despite having been ordered not to do so, Hardy’s use and reliance upon OPCA theory – combined with his refusal to recognize the court's legitimacy, heed court orders and directions, and participate in the trial process – resulted in Hardy finding himself before the court for sentencing for contempt of court. [ 27 ] The procedural steps customarily required by natural justice would not have been of any benefit in the situation faced by the court in the present case, as evidenced by Hardy’s refusal to speak to a lawyer or have a lawyer represent him, combined with his reliance on OPCA theory and his disruptive behaviour before, during and after the finding of contempt, until his removal by the sheriffs from the courtroom.

With Lord Denning’s warning in mind, the court decided that Hardy’s behaviour on September 1, 2022, demanded immediate action from the court. The court could not allow it to continue. III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND [ 28 ] The events leading up to, on, and after September 1, 2022, involving Hardy must be understood to understand the bigger picture. As such, I have reviewed the DARS recordings made during Hardy’s court appearances and the available official court transcripts.

I am setting out the relevant facts. [ 29 ] I pause to note that by considering how Hardy has conducted himself before and since I found him in criminal contempt of court on September 1, 2022, I am not considering new findings of contempt. Rather, I am reflecting on the facts solely to inform my application of the relevant sentencing factors discussed below and the appropriate sentence to be levied.

May 15, 2021 [ 30 ] Prince Rupert Court Information 30766-1 was created on May 15, 2021, and it contained a single count: Count 1 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 . In connection with the matter, Hardy was allegedly arrested on May 14, 2021, and made his first court appearance by telephone on May 15, 2021, on an in-custody basis. The prosecutor told the sitting Judicial Justice that the arrested individual might ascribe to the beliefs of being a freeman of the land and that the police had attempted to consent release the individual on an undertaking, but the individual would not participate in the process. [ 31 ] As Covid-19 preventative measures were in place, and the individual described by the police as “Mr.

Hardy” refused to wear a mask, there was some delay in getting Hardy to a telephone for the hearing. Once on the phone, the Judicial Justice asked Hardy if he was Cameron Hardy. Hardy replied, “I am a freeman being prisoned for breathing freely,” followed by a monologue expressing several OPCA-style concepts. When the Judicial Justice tried to release Hardy on a Release Order, Hardy refused to accept any terms, started telling of his dissatisfaction with the entire process, claimed that he was racially discriminated against, and would not agree to the Judicial Justice’s offer of contract.

Hardy then continued with his monologue, telling the Judicial Justice many things, including: * the Judicial Justice had no authority over him; * you kidnapped me; * you stole from me; * you abused me; * you tortured me in the cell on a cold, hard, concrete floor; * you assaulted me; * the guy fractured my ribs; * he was medically exempt from wearing a mask, and the Liquor Store staff refused to accommodate him; * he has been victimized; * he has broken no law; * there was no victim; * he wanted his rights as a freeman; * the court had no authority over him as he was a freeman. [ 32 ] The prosecutor and the Judicial Justice questioned Hardy’s ability to understand and process what was happening.

At this point, the Judicial Justice, despite initially wanting to release Hardy from custody, asked if an overnight psych assessment of Hardy might be required. The Judicial Justice adjourned Hardy to May 17, 2021, for an in-custody judicial interim release hearing in Northern Virtual Bail Court before a judge. May 17, 2021 [ 33 ] Hardy was to make his second in-custody court appearance on May 17, 2021, appearing by video in Northern Virtual Bail Court before Judge Fleck. However, Hardy refused to leave his cell for the virtual court appearance.

In his absence, Judge Fleck remanded Hardy in custody to May 18, 2021, for a judicial interim release hearing. May 18, 2021 [ 34 ] Hardy’s third in-custody court appearance was scheduled in Northern Virtual Bail Court on May 18, 2021. Hardy refused to put on a mask so he could be moved to the phone room for the judicial interim release hearing. After approximately 18 minutes had elapsed, a police officer made their mobile telephone available for Hardy’s use in his jail cell, and Hardy subsequently made his court appearance by telephone.

Judge Fleck released Hardy on a Release Order without financial obligation, with only one condition: You must not go to or be within 10 meters of the BC Liquor Store at 100 - 2 nd Avenue West, Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Judge Fleck then adjourned Hardy’s subsequent court appearance to Prince Rupert on May 26, 2021. May 26, 2021 [ 35 ] When Prince Rupert Court Information 30766-1 was called for a first appearance, an individual who identified himself as “I am man commonly called Cameron Hardy” appeared in court by telephone. I was the sitting judge.

When asked if he would have a lawyer representing him in court, he replied that he would be representing himself. He then challenged the court's jurisdiction. He told the court his language of use was English, and he was not entering a plea. He demanded that the court produce a contract with him. I entered a “not guilty” plea on his behalf because he refused to enter a plea. The court file was adjourned to June 23, 2021, to allow Hardy the

opportunity to consult legal counsel. June 23, 2021 [ 36 ] I was the sitting judge on June 23, 2021. Hardy appeared by telephone and introduced himself as “I am man commonly called Cameron Hardy by special appearance.” Hardy challenged the court's jurisdiction when asked if he had a lawyer. Hardy referenced a document he had filed with the court on June 21, 2021, demanding that the court produce a contract between the Provincial Court and himself that sets out various things, including a verifiable claim that he had committed harm.

The document also claimed the Provincial Court lacked jurisdiction and demanded that the court discharge all charges and expunge the court file. [ 37 ] When asked if he had any case law from Canada to support his position, Hardy repeated his request for a contract with a verifiable claim instead of replying to the question. He then began a speech setting out his OPCA theories. When specifically asked if he was Cameron Hardy, he stated, “No,” and then continued to voice his title and various OPCA-type beliefs.

However, he did say that he was the man the police arrested and confirmed that he would not have a lawyer. The matter was adjourned to July 7, 2021, in Prince Rupert to set the trial date. July 7, 2021 [ 38 ] A person who identified himself as “a man commonly called Cameron Hardy by a special appearance to challenge jurisdiction” appeared by telephone in Judge Stewart’s courtroom when Prince Rupert court information 30766-1 was called. The individual immediately engaged in the following exchange with the court clerk and Judge Stewart: HARDY: I filed a notice with the court yesterday.

Did you receive that, dated July 5th? THE COURT: With a fingerprint on it? THE CLERK: Is that the one that -- HARDY: Yeah. THE COURT: All right. HARDY: With a signature, yeah. THE COURT: Okay. [ 39 ] After Judge Stewart explained to Hardy that a trial date would be set, Hardy immediately responded that the court's jurisdiction was challenged. Hardy told Judge Stewart, “I am not Mr. Hardy, just so you know. I am a man commonly called Cameron Hardy and by special appearance challenge jurisdiction.” When asked if he was the person appearing on the information for Mr.

Hardy, Hardy told Judge Stewart, “I'm not a -- no, I'm not a person. I'm a man commonly called Cameron Hardy. I am the one that was illegally and unlawfully arrested.” [ 40 ] After much discussion and argument back and forth over the court’s ability to fix a trial date without proving to Hardy the court had jurisdiction, Judge Stewart had the court clerk telephone the Judicial Case Manager. The following exchange occurred: THE COURT: All right, man commonly called Cameron Hardy I have now -- this is Judge Stewart.

We've called the judicial case manager and we're now going to fix the date for trial based on the Crown's estimate of one day and so you can follow the process. The judicial case manager with the information number has the RCMP officers that are necessary to testify and so the date can be set based on the court's availability first and then their availability. So, standby, man. HARDY: I -- I object. Failure to produce a contract of verified claim [indiscernible/teleconference] this court lacks jurisdiction and I require the case discharged immediately.

THE COURT: All right, man commonly called Cameron Hardy understand that I have already ruled on that to be clear, all right? So, you'll -- if you -- it's not -- it's not uncommon that people disagree with my decisions and there are -- there are remedies for that, but the remedy -- the remedy today is not just to restate your position, all right? You have been very clear and it's clearly recorded. Everything we do is recorded. So -- so, your position has been made clear. I have made a decision.

HARDY: So [indiscernible/teleconference] burden of proof is [indiscernible] where jurisdiction squarely counts it cannot be presumed or assumed. It must be proven by man or woman within this court. You have proven jurisdiction. Is that what you are saying THE COURT: Man, no one needs to prove my jurisdiction to fix a trial date with respect to an information. So, everything is done in sequence. HARDY: [Indiscernible/teleconference]. THE COURT: Sir – HARDY: Where jurisdiction [indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: Sir -- sir, I've heard your -- I don't need to hear submissions on this point, all right?

I don't need to hear submissions on this point. HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] the law.

THE COURT: Man -- man, don't speak over me, all right? I'm -- I'm very clear on this. Don't speak over me. What we are doing right now is we are fixing the date for trial. Go ahead, so – HARDY: And I'm objecting. THE COURT: I -- your objection is clear. Your objection is clear, all right? We are fixing the date. Madam JCM, the -- the first available date for a one-day trial in this matter? JUDICIAL CASE MANAGER: Thank you, Your Honour. Prince Rupert Criminal File 30766-1, R. v.

Cameron Hardy, the first available date for trial, in Prince Rupert, is September 3rd, 2021. [ 41 ] The court appearance ended with the following exchange: THE COURT: Last -- next -- next, man. So, you are self-represented. HARDY: No, I don't -- I don't represent anything. THE COURT: All right. HARDY: I represent I, man. THE COURT: All right. There is going -- there is going to be a trial with an accused person on – HARDY: Again, I'm not a person. I'm a man. THE COURT: Don't interrupt me. Don't interrupt me, Mr. Hardy. Let me finish. You have made your position clear, all right?

There are – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: Don't, stop. Don't speak to me again until I invite you to do so. I am absolutely clear that I have jurisdiction within the four walls of this courtroom. It is one of the very few places. I do not have general jurisdiction across the Province of British Columbia, but I have absolute jurisdiction within the four walls of this courtroom. I am going to just say one last thing, which is this. To prepare for a trial there are very good resources on our website, www.provincialcourt.bc.ca . There are good self-help guidelines.

One should come to trial prepared. Bring a pad of paper, pen, and bring the disclosure package that has been provided to you. Using those self-help guides prepare yourself with respect to what the essential elements of the offence of wilful obstruction are and think through whether or not the - - the -- what types of questions you may wish to ask of the various different witnesses. If you seek to have a witness testify at the trial there are – there is good information there in terms of the process that you can use to compel their attendance.

It is important that you do that, because if you show up on the trial date and you had thought that someone was going to appear and give evidence and they don’t, one issue may be whether or not the proper process was followed. There are also books available to you in the library. The library here is only open on Wednesday afternoons and other -- otherwise I think that that is all -- all that I need to say. So – HARDY: Okay, well, I object. I challenge jurisdiction [indiscernible/teleconference]. THE COURT: All right. This next appearance on this matter is September 3rd, Mr. Salamati. CNSL J.

SALAMATI: Thank you, Your Honour. THE COURT: The next appearance we are adjourned to the trial date. CNSL J. SALAMATI: Thank you, Your Honour. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Thank you for your patience. September 3, 2021 – Hardy’s First Scheduled Trial Date [ 42 ] September 3, 2021, was Hardy’s first trial date. He appeared in court by telephone, although he stated he spent about 45 minutes waiting on MS Teams videoconferencing, only to be kicked out. The court appearance began with the following exchange: THE COURT: Thank you. Is Cameron Hardy present on the MS Teams link?

HARDY: They -- I was on there for about 45 minutes and they kicked me off and wouldn't let me back in, so I dialled in on the conference number here and before [indiscernible/teleconference] put you all on notice I am a man and I speak to a man and womankind only. All I require is you to acknowledge that you have been given notice of this. THE COURT: Okay, so there is two things.

One, you need to let me know if you are answering – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: -- you need to let me know if you are answering the charge against Cameron Hardy and two, let me know what terminology you would like me to call you. So, are you answering Court Information 30766-1, Count 1, which reads: 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 . So, are you answering that charge now? HARDY: I am a man commonly called Cameron Hardy. By special appearance I am challenging jurisdiction and before I begin I will put you on notice again I am a man and I speak to a mankind only and all I require is you to acknowledge that I have been -- that I have been given notice of this -- that you have been given notice of this.

THE COURT: I don't have to do – HARDY: And I – THE COURT: I don't have to do anything, sir, and I am looking at the court information – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: -- I am looking at Court Information 30766-1. HARDY: Okay. THE COURT: It is properly laid from what I can tell within the Province of British Columbia, which gives me jurisdiction as a Provincial Court judge to deal with the matter. So, I am dealing with the matter. You can either answer the – the charge, sir. Sorry, I apologize.

You can either answer the charge by telling me you are answering the charge as Cameron Hardy or not. It is up to you. HARDY: Okay. So, are you saying that you are not going to acknowledge that I am a man? THE COURT: I don't know if you're a man or not, sir. I will acknowledge you are a human being. HARDY: Your bailiff has seen me down there many times. Everyone has seen me. I'm a man a hundred percent guaranteed, but I am of mankind. Would you acknowledge that? THE COURT: I don't need to acknowledge anything, sir.

I am taking note that there is a – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: -- human being by the name of Cameron Hardy who has been charged on Information 30766-1. If you are not the Cameron Hardy charged on 30766-1 then we're done. If you are, [indiscernible/overlapping speakers]. HARDY: I am a man commonly called Cameron Hardy. I am the one that was assaulted and battered [indiscernible/teleconference] unlawfully detained. I am a man, but I [indiscernible] victim. I am not a legal identity called Cameron Hardy or mister or sir or any of that. I am a man.

Flesh and blood man, mankind, and I am asking that you acknowledge that because I don't deal with [indiscernible/teleconference]. I deal with man and woman. THE COURT: I am not going to get into a debate about human beings with you. HARDY: It's not a human being. It is mankind, man and women. That's all there really has been and ever will be, is man and woman in this reality of Earth. THE COURT: Well, everybody is entitled to their opinion. In any event – HARDY: It's not an opinion.

It's [indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: -- are you -- are you making an application to appear by – HARDY: Are you saying that mankind doesn't live on Earth? THE COURT: I am not saying anything. HARDY: Mankind doesn't live on Earth? THE COURT: All right, listen to me, please. Are you making an application to appear by audio conference or videoconference for the trial of 30766-1, Count 1: 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 . It's a yes or no answer. HARDY: I don't [indiscernible/teleconference] to any man or woman who violates my rights as a man. I know my rights, and I will uphold my rights. Everything I do is for honour and [indiscernible], and I will [indiscernible] man or woman who tries to press a false claim against me. Have you received my court notice I filed in the record on September 2nd? THE COURT: Are you going to answer my question? It's a yes or no answer.

HARDY: I am asking if you received my court notice [indiscernible/teleconference]. THE COURT: All right, the matter has been called -- the matter has been called, 30766-1. You should be in my courtroom – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: -- right now. If you are Cameron Hardy you should be in my courtroom right now. If you are not, then I am taking the fact that you are appearing by audio, not by videoconference, but by audio, that you are wanting to make an application to answer the charge on File 30766-1 by way of audio. Is that what you are making an application for, sir?

HARDY: I am a man commonly called Cameron Hardy by special appearance – THE COURT: All right. HARDY: -- and [indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: It's a yes or no answer, sir. HARDY: -- my court notice. THE COURT: Are you making an application to appear by audio conference? HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers]. I am asking if you received my court notice that I filed on September 2nd, because there is a couple lines on there, and I would like you to read them so you know my position. THE COURT: I am going to make this very clear to you, sir. You are not in charge here, I am.

HARDY: I am not -- no, I am not sir, I am a man and I bring forth my own court, my own mankind law. THE COURT: All right. I am going to take your representation earlier that you are a man commonly called Cameron Hardy as an admission for purposes of establishing that you are the individual in Information 30766-1 for purposes of appearing before the court. Not for purposes of identification in the trial proper, just so you are clear on that, Mr. Schille. CNSL K. SCHILLE: Certainly, Your Honour.

THE COURT: So, are you making an application – HARDY: I'm not -- THE COURT: -- pursuant to s. 715.23 – HARDY: I'm not making – THE COURT: -- to appear by audio conference or videoconference? HARDY: [Indiscernible/teleconference] and that's a title, and what is the benefit of accepting a title, mister or sir or individual? Unless you can tell me the benefits, I don't accept titles. I am a man commonly called Cameron Hardy, and I am here by special appearance to challenge your jurisdiction. THE COURT: Well, I have already established that the court has jurisdiction. So, let's move on to the next question.

Are you making an application to appear – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: -- by audio conference or videoconference? HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: It’s a yes or no answer. HARDY: You didn't establish jurisdiction. Are you forgetting [indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: All right.

HARDY: [Indiscernible/teleconference] where jurisdiction is squarely challenged, it cannot be presumed or assumed unless [indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: I am not ruling – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] court. [ 43 ] I then read s. 715.23 of the Criminal Code out loud. Mr. Schille, for the prosecution, interjected that the Crown would seek to

identify Hardy in court as part of the trial process. Mr. Schille also stated, “The Crown's strong preference would be to have the man charged on this information present in the courtroom to proceed with trial.” Hardy and I then had the following exchange: HARDY: I drive -- I was down at the courthouse today, and I tried to go in, and they wouldn't let me. They refused me access to the courthouse. THE COURT: Why did they not let you in the courthouse? HARDY: They said I had to wear a mask, and I can't wear a mask [indiscernible/teleconference].

THE COURT: The provincial health officer has mandated that public buildings, which the courthouse is one, in order to enter, you need to wear a mask. What is your medical condition – HARDY: Even if – THE COURT: -- that would not allow you to wear a mask? HARDY: Even if I had a medical condition – THE COURT: Do you have a letter from a licenced physician within the Province of British Columbia saying that you would be unable to wear a mask for the 15 to 20 seconds it would take you to walk from the entrance of the courthouse to Courtroom 200? HARDY: I don't need another man or woman's permission to breathe.

I have been breathing my entire life on my own. [ 44 ] I went on to rule that I was not satisfied that it was in the interest of justice that the trial proceeded with Hardy appearing by telephone and denied the application for Hardy to appear by telephone. Hardy immediately exclaimed, “I'm not Cameron Hardy. I don't wish to be called something. I am a man commonly called Cameron Hardy.” [ 45 ] I then entered into another back-and-forth with Hardy, trying to determine if he wished to apply to appear for his trial by videoconferencing.

While explaining to Hardy that he needed to make an application, he interrupted me and stated, “I don't have to make any application. I abide by real common law, spiritual law. I don't have to apply for nothing.” [ 46 ] After I gave Hardy the choice of attending the courthouse in person within seven minutes or making an application to have his trial proceed by videoconferencing, Hardy asked for twenty minutes so that he could appear by MS Teams videoconferencing. We adjourned the court. When we recommended sometime later, Hardy appeared by MS Teams, but without his camera turned on.

The following exchange occurred: HARDY: Before I begin, I will put you all on notice I am a man, and I speak to man and womankind only. All I require is you to acknowledge that you have been given notice of this, that I am a man and I deal with man and woman only. THE COURT: I'm going to repeat what I said earlier. I am not required, nor am I going to be answering your questions or taking commands from you. An individual has been charged on Information 30766-1 with the name Cameron Hardy.

Now, if that individual – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: -- wants to identify as I, man, commonly called Cameron Hardy, that's that person's business. What I am – HARDY: I am not an individual identifying as that. I am a man commonly called that. I am not an individual identifying by any legal identity. I am not a legal fiction. I was created by the creative source. I'm a man, a mankind. I'm not some legal identity on a piece of paper that was created by man and owned by man. So, I am not an individual. THE COURT: So, are you applying – HARDY: I'm a man.

THE COURT: Are you applying, pursuant to s. 715.23 , to appear in court today for the trial in relation to Information 30766-1? HARDY: I, a man commonly called Cameron Hardy, by special appearance, challenge jurisdiction. THE COURT: Well, I have jurisdiction, so we have moved on. So, yes or no, are you applying – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: Okay – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: -- I am going to make this very – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: I am going to make this very simple. It's a yes or no answer.

HARDY: Jurisdiction on what proof have you given? That you have jurisdiction. What proof have you given that you have jurisdiction? THE COURT: All right, it is now 11:14 –

HARDY: As a man [indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: -- a.m. The individual who is appearing by video with the name I, man, commonly called Cameron Hardy, refuses to answer the court's question. Therefore, I do not take the position that he has applied to appear by videoconference. Accordingly, there will a warrant issued for the arrest of Cameron Hardy in relation to 30766-1 for non-appearance in court today. That will be an – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] –- THE COURT: -- unendorsed warrant. Thank you.

January 5, 2022 [ 47 ] By coincidence, I was the judge sitting in Northern Virtual Bail Court on January 5, 2022, when Hardy appeared in custody, having been arrested on the September 3, 2021, warrant. A lawyer did not represent Hardy, as he would not engage with the lawyer assigned to provide free legal advice and assistance to persons in custody.

The BC Prosecution Service was agreeable to Hardy’s release, albeit on a Release Order with a $500 cash deposit and several conditions, including reporting to the bail supervisor and not attending to the BC Liquor Store in Prince Rupert. [ 48 ] When he addressed the court, Hardy stated that he was not a person and repeated his OPCA-type beliefs.

As part of his oration, he also told the court that he would never wear a mask, as they cause harm, and that he could not post $500 cash bail. [ 49 ] I granted bail to Hardy on a Release Order, without financial obligation, with three conditions: he report to a bail supervisor, provide the bail supervisor with his address and telephone number, and not go within 100 meters of the BC Liquor Store in Prince Rupert. I also ordered that Hardy could appear virtually in court by MS Teams for his next court appearance so that he did not have to wear a mask.

Hardy told the court that he would not agree to or sign the Release Order. I explained that he would remain in custody until he signed the Release Order. I set Hardy’s next court appearance for January 12, 2022, to allow him to consult legal counsel and set a new trial date. January 12, 2022 [ 50 ] Judge Stewart was the presiding judge on January 12, 2022. Although on the previous court occasion I made an order allowing Hardy to appear by video on January 12, 2022, he elected to appear by telephone.

He immediately launched into an OPCA-type discourse, stated that he had the defendant in his hand and was willing to surrender it to the court, and then demanded the ability to establish “a few things for the record.” Hardy told Judge Stewart that he does not accept “any benefits or privileges of the legal system” and was present to “press a claim of trespass in open court before a trial by jury as is my right.” [ 51 ] When Judge Stewart inquired if a plea had been entered, the court clerk confirmed that a “not guilty” plea had already been entered.

Nonetheless, Judge Stewart stated that he was directing a “deemed not guilty plea’ be entered and that it was his decision, not Hardy’s. Despite being asked numerous times to be quiet and not talk until spoken to, in speaking over Judge Stewart, Hardy stated that he wanted the record to show that he had not entered a plea, nor would he ever enter a plea, and that he was not present for the benefit of the legal society and was not part of the Bar Association.

Hardy stressed that he was competent in the law to appear before the court and that he wanted to correct the record. [ 52 ] As Judge Stewart was in the process of adjourning Hardy to January 26, 2022, to allow Hardy to confirm on the record the new trial date that would be fixed, Hardy interrupted Judge Stewart and stated, And for the record, ah, if you put a plea on my behalf, then you are Cameron Hardy here today on Your Honour, and you will take the responsibility of the charges here today. Let it be known only for the record. I’m not accepting a surety. I’m not accepting that name or the plaintiff.

So let it be known, only for the record, that the man, known as, I believe your name is Dwight Stewart, that the man acting as judge is hereby acting as Cameron Hardy. So you’re now Cameron Hardy. [ 53 ] Hardy’s court appearance ended with Judge Stewart muting Hardy and having the court clerk disconnect the telephone call so the subsequent court case could be called. January 26, 2022 [ 54 ] The matter was called in court to confirm Hardy’s new trial dates. Hardy appeared by telephone.

When asked to identify himself, Hardy told the court, So, I'm the man known as Cam Hardy, and I have also brought the defendant before this court known as Cameron Hardy, and I have the birth certificate of the defendant in my hand and – and as I said on January 12th, I did surrender the defendant to the court. When the Justice of the Peace asked him if she could call him Mr. Hardy, he replied, “No. I am a man known as Cam Hardy.

The defendant in this matter is Cameron Hardy.” [ 55 ] After the Justice of the Peace confirmed the trial dates with him, Hardy delivered a monologue embracing OPCA-type ideologies and concepts, including stating that he does not consent to the March 14 and 15, 2022, trial dates that were set: HARDY: Yeah, I didn't -- I didn't consent to that. I do not consent to any legal contract. It is not my intent to use the benefits of the legal society [indiscernible/teleconference]. THE COURT: Okay.

HARDY: That said, I have committed no wrongs before the court, but if there is a wrong, if a man or woman is making a claim I did wrong, I am more than happy to hear any claim before this court; however –

THE COURT: Thank you. HARDY: -- I am also here as a man, and the reason I am here as a man is because I believe wrongs of trespass have been done against I, man, and I wish to press a claim before this court for what I believe to be trespass by way of unlawful confinement and extortion. THE COURT: Thank you, Cam Hardy. [ 56 ] The court appearance concluded with Hardy telling the court, “I will be present to press a claim before a trial by jury on that date.” March 14, 2022 – Hardy’s Second Scheduled Trial Date [ 57 ] Regional Administrative Judge Struyk was the assigned trial judge on March 14, 2022.

Although he had not received an order from the court beforehand, Hardy appeared by telephone, not in person, for his trial. There was less than an optimum telephone connection. [ 58 ] The proceeding began with RAJ Struyk asking Hardy if he had a lawyer, to which Hardy replied it was not his intention to use the services of legal society. Hardy then told RAJ Struyk he was “a man known as Cameron Hardy to press a claim.” [ 59 ] Due to the court's continuing difficulties understanding what Hardy was saying owing to the poor telephone connection, RAJ Struyk asked Hardy to disconnect and call back.

Hardy did so. [ 60 ] Once Hardy was reconnected with the court by telephone, RAJ Struyk asked Hardy if he was representing himself. Hardy replied, “I'm not representing anything. I'm a man known as Cameron Hardy, and I am present to press a claim before this court for a trial by jury. It's not my intent to use the benefits of the legal society here today.” When the Crown referenced Hardy as being “Mr. Hardy,” Hardy interjected, “If they could please not refer to me as Mr. Hardy. I am not accepting any titles.

So, he can refer to me as man.” [ 61 ] After the prosecutor explained to RAJ Struyk what the trial concerned, RAJ Struyk engaged in the following conversation with Hardy: THE COURT: Okay. All right, Mr. Hardy, it's your turn. Why – HARDY: So -- THE COURT: Go ahead, but if I can't understand you, sir, this proceeding will come to an end very quickly, and I will end up having to issue a warrant for your arrest.

HARDY: Well, I have been calling on another phone, and I was down there today, and they wouldn't let me in the courthouse, and I believe that is a violation of my right as a -- THE COURT: Well, you can -- sir -- sir, you can – HARDY: -- [indiscernible/overlapping speakers] all the matters presented. THE COURT: Sir -- sir -- sir, there is no violation of your rights. There is a policy here in place. All courthouses are still adhering to health protocols with respect to masks. Was that what the issue was?

HARDY: I believe that all matters [indiscernible/teleconference] mankind have the -- have the right to be heard before a trial by jury [indiscernible]. THE COURT: Well, this is – HARDY: That I have the right [indiscernible/teleconference], but I was denied. THE COURT: Yes, you do have a right to – HARDY: And also [indiscernible/teleconference], just so I am clear, if you can't hear me, I can call in on another phone, or I can come down there. THE COURT: Well – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: -- I suggest -- I suggest, sir, look, I am not holding this trial outside.

Are you going to wear a mask or not wear a mask if you come to the courthouse? HARDY: I cannot wear a mask. That -- if you – THE COURT: Why? HARDY: -- are saying – THE COURT: Why?

HARDY: -- I have to wear a mask – THE COURT: Why? Why? HARDY: -- [indiscernible/teleconference] – THE COURT: Why? Why? HARDY: -- for a trial by jury. THE COURT: Stay on topic. HARDY: Because it causes harm. THE COURT: To who? HARDY: Because they cause harm. THE COURT: Okay. HARDY: I can list it in different ways that masks cause harm. THE COURT: And sir – HARDY: I have never worn a mask, and I cannot wear a mask, but I still have the right to have my claim heard before a trial by jury. THE COURT: You don't have a – HARDY: And they can decide if I should wear a mask or not.

THE COURT: Sir, there is no jury trial here. HARDY: Well, I -- I required a jury trial, trial by jury last time we spoke on videoconference. I said I'm here as a man known as Cameron Hardy to press a claim before the court. THE COURT: Well, the only person – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] my right. THE COURT: The only person I am dealing with is Cameron Hardy. I am not dealing with any man in general. I am dealing with Cameron Hardy. If he doesn't come here to deal with his matter or give me a legitimate reason why he is not here, I will issue a warrant for him.

HARDY: Well, I understand, Your Honour. I do believe [indiscernible/teleconference] is a violation of my rights as a man. So, I am here to press a claim. THE COURT: I don't know – HARDY: And [indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: I don't know what you're talking about. HARDY: -- as the defendant. THE COURT: I have no idea what – HARDY: So, I have the defendant -- I have the defendant, Cameron Hardy, in -- in my hand, and I have the birth certificate that is the defendant in my hand, and I surrender the defendant to the court at this time, and I can deliver to you however [indiscernible/teleconference].

And that said, I do not consent to any legal contract. It is not my intent to use the benefits of the legal society. I am a man known as Cameron Hardy, and I believe I have committed no wrong here before this court, but if there is a wrong, if a man or a woman is making a claim I did a wrong I am more than happy to hear them coming before this court. [Indiscernible] I am also here as a man and [indiscernible] as a man is to press a claim, trial by jury, that I believe wrong has been done against I.

THE COURT: I don't know what you're talking about, but what I do know is I am going to ask the Crown to proceed against Cameron Hardy on an ex parte basis if he does not give me a reason why he is not here in short order that is legitimate enough for me to grant an adjournment or to -- and if not, I will simply run a trial in his absence if the Crown is willing to do that. And your talk about jury is absolute – is this -- is this matter proceeding indictably? CNSL J. EWASIUK: No, Your Honour. THE COURT: There is no right to a jury.

So, don't -- don't even say the word jury again in this proceeding because it gets you absolutely nowhere. So, either -- I am going to give – HARDY: I -- I am a man that has the right to press a claim before a trial by a jury of a wrong done to I that I consider a trespass. Are you denying me the right to a trial by jury?

THE COURT: Yes, I am. HARDY: And you want to testify to that? Like, do you own this court building? Because I believe that it's a public court building where all matters contentious can be settled before me and mankind. [Indiscernible/teleconference] to stop me from bringing forth my claim. I require you to perform your duties [indiscernible]. THE COURT: Okay, bring a claim then. HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: Bring a -- bring a – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: Mr. Hardy -- Mr. Hardy -- Mr.

Hardy – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers] – THE COURT: Oh, brother. HARDY: I have already stated that I have presented the person, Cameron Hardy, the birth certificate, to this court. THE COURT: Okay. HARDY: I am also here as a man to press a claim, which is my right. THE COURT: Yeah, go – HARDY: For a trial by jury. THE COURT: Mr. Hardy -- Mr. Hardy, if you want to start a civil suit and ask for a civil jury go right ahead. Go right ahead and make your claim. That's not what this process or setting is about. So, I am going to stand this down for 15 minutes. We will get back on.

If Cameron Hardy is not here personally in a mask in the courtroom, I intend on either issuing a warrant for his arrest or proceeding ex parte . I will give the Crown a chance to consider their options. Fifteen minutes stand down. HARDY: [Indiscernible/teleconference] – THE COURT: Turn that off. [ 62 ] When court recommenced, Hardy was immediately back at it, stating over the telephone, I am a man known as Cameron Hardy, and I am here as a man to press a claim before this court for a trial by a jury.

Have you received my claim filed with the court? [ 63 ] After some back and forth – including input from the prosecutor and with Hardy muted by the court due to his continual interruptions of the court – the discussion shifted to masks and the current policy of the Provincial Court regarding the requirement for masks in courthouses. When RAJ Struyk unmuted Hardy so that Hardy could participate in the mask policy discussion geared towards finding a workaround that would allow Hardy to attend the trial and not have to wear a mask in the courtroom, the following exchange took place: THE COURT: Thank you. Mr.

Hardy, can you speak to me about the policy that I just read to you and that there is a way through this? HARDY: [Indiscernible/teleconference] I am a man [indiscernible], and I am here to [indiscernible] before this court before a trial by jury, as stated on the last call. Have you received my claim that I filed with the court? THE COURT: No. Are you going to attend for your trial, or am I going to see if I'm -- see if the court proceeds without you present? That will be your choice, sir. HARDY: The defendant, Cameron Hardy, is here. I have the birth certificate in my hand that is the defendant, Your Honour.

A man known as Cameron Hardy is here as well to press a claim. What part of that don't you understand? I can help clarify it for you. THE COURT: You are not clarifying anything for me, Mr. Hardy. You are just -- you are just playing games with the court. So, either you – HARDY: No, I am – THE COURT: Yes, you are. HARDY: -- pressing a claim. THE COURT: No, Mr. Hardy. HARDY: It is not a game. THE COURT: You're –

HARDY: This is my life. I do not take this lightly. It's not some game. I have been wronged by fellow men and women acting as police officers using [indiscernible/teleconference] rather than statutes to commit a wrong [indiscernible], and I have the right to be heard before a trial by a jury. Are you denying me that right? THE COURT: Yes, we already talked about that. I am denying your right to a jury. HARDY: And who is making this claim? What's your name? THE COURT: I already told you my name. HARDY: What is it? THE COURT: I already told you. Go look. I already told you.

I am not going back getting – you don't ask – HARDY: Well, we had a bad connection. I didn't hear. Will you please state it for the record so I know who I am speaking with? THE COURT: I already said it, sir. HARDY: You know my name. THE COURT: You don't ask questions here. HARDY: Well – COURT: You can make submissions. HARDY: No, I ask questions, and I -- I give statements. I am not asking permission for nothing. I am not here to accept any benefits of the legal society here today. I am here as a man to press a claim for a trial by jury, as is my right.

THE COURT: No, it's – HARDY: Are you denying me of that right? THE COURT: Yes. HARDY: So, I consider that a trespass. THE COURT: Okay. HARDY: And I will press a claim against you, a man, so that you can testify under oath before a trial by a jury how you think you have got the right to deny men and women the right to a trial by a jury. I believe this is a public court building where all matters contentious can be settled before [indiscernible/teleconference] mankind. Who do you believe you are to stop me from bringing forth my claim? I require you to perform your duties or else recuse yourself now.

Unless it is your intent to [indiscernible/teleconference]. THE COURT: So, we are getting to the place now where I am going to decide, are you -- we can proceed ex parte . I am not allowing this individual, who is appearing by phone, to interrupt a trial any further, a trial proceeding. What I am going to have to consider is whether or not it is appropriate to proceed ex parte and at the conclusion -- I suppose at the conclusion of that, we will deal with other issues, but I will simply say this.

I will give Cameron Hardy a chance to attend court yet under the terms that I have outlined and -- and if he does not attend to defend himself, then the person who is appearing by video -- or not by video even, by -- Mr. Hardy, just be quiet. I am -- I know this is Mr. Hardy appearing, or it's his agent of some form speaking a bunch of gobbledygook. HARDY: No.

THE COURT: So, I will then be prepared to issue -- well, we will have to deal with a warrant, I suppose, at some point, and it may be at the conclusion of the Crown's case, I think if I'm not -- if I'm not mistaken. [ 64 ] RAJ Struyk moved matters along by once again muting Hardy and inviting the prosecutor to make an application to proceed with the trial on an ex parte basis under s. 803(2) (

a) of the Criminal Code . The prosecutor made his application. RAJ Struyk then had Hardy unmuted and asked Hardy for his response to the prosecution’s application. The following exchange took place: HARDY: I am appearing here today as a man known as Cameron Hardy to press a claim before the court for a trial by jury, and I understand under the Canadian adjudicator act [indiscernible/teleconference] multiple jurisdictions [indiscernible].

So, if all the men and women who are involved in this legal complaint are the same men and women that are involved in my claim, for the convenience for the court, I am happy to press this claim by trial by jury before the court the same time they press their complaint. THE COURT: That doesn't work that way. I don't have that kind of jurisdiction. HARDY: Well, I understand that you do [indiscernible/teleconference] multiple jurisdictions. So, why would I want to waste your time with another court? I am sure you are more than competent to handle this matter, are you not?

THE COURT: You don't under – HARDY: You cannot appear in multiple jurisdictions [indiscernible/teleconference]? THE COURT: First of all, you don't ask me the questions on things like that because I have already told you I don't have jurisdiction to

do a jury trial. HARDY: It's a trial by a jury, not a jury trial. THE COURT: Oh, thank you for that clarification, sir. It just tells me you don't really know what you're talking about, and you are being obstreperous. So, do you want to come here? HARDY: No, it says I know exactly what I'm talking about. A trial by a jury is what I require, not a jury trial. I require a trial by a jury, as is my right as a man to press a claim before this court. THE COURT: I don't know whose script you are reading, sir, but you are way off. HARDY: That is -- that is the law. That is the law.

THE COURT: Anyway, look, why don't you deal with the question that is put before you?

The Crown wants to proceed in your absence bringing in the witnesses to present their case against you, and you won't be here if I allow that because of the way you are dealing with this, and I am going to say once more if you were to come to the courthouse to deal with this trial and put on a mask as I have to -- I am -- everybody has to comply with this, but if you come to the courtroom I can excuse you from wearing a mask unless there is a good reason why I shouldn't excuse you and then we could proceed in person here with the trial, but if you don't want to do that then, unfortunately, this trial -- all of the evidence may be presented in your absence and I would rather that didn't happen, but you're not leaving the court a lot of -- a lot of room.

HARDY: [Indiscernible/teleconference] mankind [indiscernible] jury is the law. Now, if the jury decides that this mask mandate and this kind of nonsense which is utterly stupid [indiscernible] understand that [indiscernible] they could get rid of that kind of nonsense by way of [indiscernible] statute [indiscernible] like in this case with I, a man commonly known as Cameron Hardy. THE COURT: So, are you going to -- HARDY: Do you understand? Does that make sense? THE COURT: No, not at all. HARDY: What part don't you understand? THE COURT: So, you are not addressing the question.

Are you going to come down here and get to this courtroom to defend yourself or not? HARDY:I am not defending anything here. I am here to press a claim as a man as my right for a trial by a jury. Now, if you're acting a judge, you should know the law, and you should know what a trial by jury is, and if you don't then you should recuse yourself immediately before you commit a trespass on my case, man. THE COURT: Well, it is unfortunate, Mr. Hardy, that you choose to use this kind of language here because it is not advancing your case at all. It is not the right jurisdiction.

The court has no power to do jury trials or trials by jury, and I simply am asking you a question. If you don't come down here, and I am trying to make accommodations for you so you can appear in the courtroom and defend yourself, but you are choosing not to. Instead, you are relying on a bunch of this fictitious law that has absolutely no traction in Canadian courts, and you are the one that is going to lose out at least on an evidentiary basis because you won't be here to challenge the evidence, but that's up to you. HARDY: I was there as a man to press a claim.

You guys want to mask me, and they cause some harm. That is what this whole thing is about. You don't get to decide if I wear a mask or not. Who are you? A trial by jury will decide if I wear a mask or not, not you. You are not the law. It's a public building to hear all matters contentious to be held before me and mankind. Who do you believe you are? THE COURT: Well, the only – THE CLERK: Oh, sorry. THE COURT: Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, did we lose him? THE CLERK: We lost that, but we didn't lose -- sorry -- sorry, Mr. Hardy, are you still there? Mr. Hardy? Mr. Hardy, can you hear me? Mr. Hardy, can you hear me?

HARDY: I can hear you. THE COURT: Okay, sorry, we just lost you for a minute there. HARDY: I'm a man. THE COURT: So, yes, I think we have got you back now, Mr. Hardy. HARDY: Did you hear what I said? THE COURT: Probably, but not all of it. It's the same -- HARDY: Well, okay, then I will just repeat it.

THE COURT: Well, you have said it many times already. HARDY: What I said is I am [indiscernible/teleconference]. What I said was that it's a public court building where all matters contentious can be settled before me and mankind. Who do you believe you are to stop me from bringing forth my claim? I require you to perform your duty as a public servant or else recuse yourself now unless it is your intent to trespass on this case. I am a man known as Cameron Hardy. I appear to press a claim before this court for a trial by a jury. THE COURT: Mr. – HARDY: The defendant known as Cameron Hardy is also here.

I have the birth certificate in my hand that is the defendant, Your Honour, and man known as Cameron Hardy is also here to press a claim. What part don't you understand? It is pretty simple. It's a simple claim I wish to press. Have you never dealt with a claim before? THE COURT: I am not dignifying that with a response. HARDY: This isn't a complaint. I am not part -- not part of the legal society. I am not here to contract legal society. I am here as a man. A man trying to press a claim. You don't understand the law, the difference between a complaint and a claim?

They can have their side of the court and press their complaint while my side of the court press my claim at the same time. There is no reason in wasting court time if all the same men and women are here present. THE COURT: All right, so – HARDY: I also said under the adjudicator act that you can hear multiple jurisdictions before you at one time. So, if you are not competent or you don't know the law on that, you can hold – or hear multiple jurisdictions, then again, I think you should recuse yourself before you commit a trespass on my claim.

THE COURT: So, here is the challenge that I – there is a few challenges here, and one of them is – I mean, the obvious one to me is it seems to me that Mr. Hardy is using the mask mandate to avoid attending into the actual courthouse, despite the court – HARDY: No, I am there as a man ready to -- and I entered the courthouse. They told me I had to leave. So, unless you guys let me in, I can't get in. THE COURT: But that's because you – HARDY: They are denying me my right, which is against the law. It's a public courthouse. I have a right to be heard. THE COURT: Okay.

HARDY: You guys are denying me that right, which is a crime. THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Hardy, thank you. We are going to mute you again. THE CLERK: Muted. [ 65 ] Based upon what seemed like an impossible situation, and in trying to determine the best course of action forward, RAJ Struyk stated: All right. As I understand it, Mr. Hardy has attended at the courthouse but refused to comply with wearing a mask to come into the courthouse.

I have tried to accommodate that by indicating I would be willing to consider him simply removing it once he gets to the courtroom, but it is impossible to talk to him about this as an option. What I am trying to think about is, is it more worthwhile to have this trial run when there is no more a mask mandate and we have him here, balanced against all of the challenges that an ex parte trial is going to bring to this process, because then we are going to have a whole bunch of evidence, plus a risk of conviction without Mr. Hardy having the opportunity to cross-examine.

I find myself a little bit concerned about that, not because I think any of his objections are legitimate, I just don't, but he may cause more entanglement if -- by proceeding -- may cause -- there is even a possibility from what I understand from an ex parte -- I mean we are talking here ultimately even though Mr. Hardy refers to it as his life on the line, I can't imagine that there is any risk of a serious sentence here if he is convicted. I see both prosecutors shaking their heads.

So, that seems to me that any sentence that is imposed should he be convicted is at the lower end, but I find that I don't -- I find the language and the actions taken by Mr. Hardy are completely obstreperous. It's just done to frustrate the court process, and he -- what he is talking about has absolute -- even if it is boiled down to what it actually were to mean mechanically or procedurally, it's impossible to do what he says he wants done.

That is not how jurisdictions and the court work, and he seems to be reading off a script over and over again and doesn't actually engage in the arguments or discussions that are put before him. Balanced against that, I have concerns that I am creating more cost to the Canadian public by adjourning a trial that has been set, witnesses are here, but I am worried ultimately that what that is going to lead to is if I proceed ex parte is that transcripts are going to be ordered. If there is a video, it is almost impossible -- you can't capture the video on transcripts, and then if the mask mandate is dropped, Mr.

Hardy would be allowed to – would attend personally. I have no comment on the mask mandate itself. It is what it is. It does have flexibility built into it which Mr. Hardy simply does not seem to want to avail himself of. So, I can also say it is not that I don't have other litigation matters that I am supposed to deal with today. It's not -- and that does not -- that does not make a difference to me here, but it's not like I will be standing down with nothing to do. I understand there is a virtual bail court that requires a judge, or it did anyway, and I would be the one attending for that.

So, I am just -- I am also an out-of-town judge, which means it is going to create more difficulties in the future if this matter proceeds ex parte . I -- I find myself very stretched here as to -- as to what is the appropriate -- I think the Crown is fully within its rights to ask for an

ex parte trial and in normal -- in a normal circumstance, I would probably grant it without hesitation, but -- and I -- again, I want to make it perfectly clear I don't find any of Mr. Hardy's arguments compelling on any grounds whatsoever, but an ex parte trial brings its own challenges and . . . can -- can I hear anything else from the Crown? Any other submissions? You have heard my thoughts on this. I am not receiving really any assistance from Mr. Hardy. CNSL J. EWASIUK: If it -- if it allayed Your Honour's concerns, Crown could probably proceed without the video.

We could rely just on the testimony of the witnesses, which maybe mechanically removes some of the issue. CNSL K. SCHILLE: As a second point, I think there is clear authority, just factoring in the cost of a potential trial. Certainly, I think in the circumstances, Crown has established at least a baseline case to proceed ex parte . There is, of course, the issue of the pseudo legal arguments that are being brought and certainly, the Meads and Meads decision has made clear that those don't have to be given a lot of thrift by the court.

So, there is efficiencies on both sides potentially in trying to deal with this matter today, but the Crown has no -- Crown takes no serious position on whether an ex parte trial is more important than the issuance of an unendorsed warrant on this date. THE COURT: All right, I am going to unmute Mr. Hardy one more time and see if he has got anything to add or say of value and if not, I will mute him again. Go ahead, Mr. Hardy. You have heard my thoughts on this up to now. What would you like to say, if anything? HARDY: I am a man [indiscernible/teleconference], so you cannot refer to me as Mr.

Hardy or any other titles. I am not taking any titles here today. You can refer to me as [indiscernible]. I am here as a man to press a claim for a trial by a jury. That is my right, and I am ready to go. You guys can hold your trial on your side of the court, and I'll press my claim for your complaint, and I will press my claim on my side of the court for a trial by a jury, as is the law. THE COURT: Are you coming down here then to deal – HARDY: [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers]. THE COURT: Are you coming here to deal with it?

HARDY: Yeah, I can come down there as a man, but you do not have the right to make me wear a mask. I cannot wear a mask. They cause me harm. We will let a jury, a trial by jury, decide if I wear a mask or not, not you. Who do you think you are to tell me I have to wear a mask? You have no right. THE COURT: One more time, Mr. Hardy, I will tell you that you can attend at the courthouse, walk through the hallway with a mask on. You come into my courtroom. I will excuse you from wearing a mask unless there is – HARDY: I do not need to -- excuse me. I do not have to wear a mask. That is what this whole case is about.

I will not wear a mask when they cause me harm. Are you saying you want me to wear a mask that causes me harm? Is that what you are stating for the record? THE COURT: So, you have a medical – HARDY: [Indiscernible/teleconference]. THE COURT: Yes, very good. So, you have a medical opinion that prevents -- that says you shouldn't have to wear a mask? HARDY: I don't need a medical opinion. I can tell you about 15 different reasons, ways that masks cause harm. I am not going to cause myself harm. We will let a trial by jury decide if I need to be masked like a good little obedient slave.

We all know this COVID is a -- is a hoax. It's a bunch of lies, and the truth is coming out, and people are dying for COVID shots, and they're being caused harm by these masks. It's common knowledge, and I require a trial by a jury so they can decide if I wear a mask or not, not you. THE COURT: So, you are not actually Cameron Hardy? HARDY: I am a man known as Cameron Hardy here today.

I also have the defendant Cameron Hardy here today, birth certificate in my hand that is the defendant, Your Honour, and I did surrender this to the court and I [indiscernible/teleconference] Cameron Hardy is here to press a claim, and I can deliver the birth certificate [indiscernible] however you want Cameron Hardy. I can bring him down to the court right now, giving you the birth certificate because that is the defendant.

That is the [indiscernible] person, Cameron Hardy. [ 66 ] As matters drew towards a conclusion, Hardy continued with his speech making, as set out in the following exchange: HARDY: I am not here for Provincial Court. I am here for a trial by jury at open court. THE COURT: Okay, stop. HARDY: I am not here to participate in your legal courts or legal complaint. You guys can press your claim on your side of the court. I will press my claim on my side, as is my right. [Indiscernible/teleconference] you have multi -- you can have multiple jurisdictions before you at one time.

THE COURT: Unfortunately – HARDY: So, if all of the men and women that are involved in this legal complaint are the same ones involved in my claim, for the convenience of the court, I am happy to press this claim by trial by jury. Otherwise, I will press my claim at civil court, and I will see you all in court before a trial by jury that way. THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Mute him. THE CLERK: Muting him.

[ 67 ] Ultimately, when balancing Hardy’s right to a fair trial and the need to see the matter proceed, RAJ Struyk came to the following conclusion: So, what I am going to do is I am going to adjourn this to the trial coordinator to fix a new date. My objective is to set this at a time that will

[…]