R v Patron, 2023 SKCA 34

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Docket: CACR3628 Citation: R v Patron , 2023 SKCA 34 Date: 2023-03-13 Between: Travis Patron Appellant And His Majesty the King Respondent Before: Jackson, Tholl and Kalmakoff JJ.A.

Disposition: Appeals dismissed (orally) Written reasons by: The Court On appeal from: CRM 32 of 2021 (KB), Estevan Appeal heard: March 13, 2023 Counsel: Travis Patron on his own behalf Andrew Davis for the Respondent The Court [ 1 ] Following a jury trial, Travis Patron was convicted of the wilful promotion of hatred in Saskatchewan against an identifiable group, Jews, contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code : R v Patron (5 October 2022) Estevan, CRM 32 of 2021 (Sask KB).

He was sentenced to 168 days incarceration – a one-year sentence minus 197 days credit for pre-sentence custody – followed by one year of probation: R v Patron , 2022 SKKB 231 . Mr. Patron appealed from both conviction and sentence. At the conclusion of the appeal hearing, we dismissed the appeal, with written reasons to follow. These are those reasons. [ 2 ] Mr. Patron’s grounds of appeal, on conviction and sentence, all relate to jurisdiction. In his notice of appeal, he asserts the following: 1.

The court has proceeded in excess of jurisdiction after having previously forfeited personal jurisdiction over the accused prior to February 14, 2021 by neglecting our religious right ( Gospels of Oahspe : Book of Judgment,

Chapter 35 , verses 1–9) to practise law without a license in the dominion’s courts ( Canadian Nationalist Party vs City of Saskatoon ). 2. The Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they have personal jurisdiction over these matters. 3. In the final charge to the jury on October 5th, 2022, Justice Neil Robertson directed jurors “not to consider those concerns [lack of jurisdiction] as possible defences” despite the jury being trier of fact ([67] page 20). Jurisdiction is a question of fact because the highest light is fact, and jurisdiction (authority to dictate law) is the highest light.

Definition: fact – a thing known to be true/false. 4. The Gospels of Oahspe are religious texts of divine origin revealed unto mankind in the name “Jehovah”. 5. The accused (Travis Patron) is the corporate sole [ sic ] of federally-sanctioned political entity ‘Canadian Nationalist Party’. This appeal is a matter of personal liberty in relation to our nation, and therefore, must be expedited .

The Canadian Nation is founded on the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person, and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions who remain free when founded on respect for moral values, spiritual values, and the rule of law ( Constitution Act , Canadian Bill of Rights ). (Emphasis in original) [ 3 ] We will first examine the assertion that a civil action between the Canadian Nationalist Party [CNP] and the City of Saskatoon caused the Crown to forfeit jurisdiction over Mr. Patron in relation to this criminal matter. [ 4 ] Mr.

Patron was the leader of the CNP at the time that action was commenced and wanted to personally represent it in those proceedings. He is not a lawyer. Upon application by the City of Saskatoon, a Court of Queen’s Bench Chambers judge ordered that no further steps could be taken by the CNP until it was represented by a lawyer: Canadian Nationalist Party Inc. v Saskatoon (City) (10 December 2020) Saskatoon, QBG 220 of 2020 (Sask).

On February 9, 2021, CNP’s appeal from that decision was quashed by this Court because CNP had not sought leave to appeal, and the granting of leave on a nunc pro tunc basis was refused because the appeal was destined to fail: Saskatoon (City) v The Canadian Nationalist Party Inc. , 2021 SKCA 22 , 456 DLR (4th) 654. [ 5 ] In his oral argument, Mr. Patron submitted that these decisions caused the Crown, including the Court of Queen’s Bench, to forfeit jurisdiction over him, as of February 9, 2021, by denying him the right to practice law without a license. This argument has no merit.

An order requiring a political party to be represented by a lawyer in an unrelated civil action between that political party and a city cannot possibly have any effect on the jurisdiction of the Court of King’s Bench in relation to a prosecution of an individual for an offence under s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code . We note that Mr. Patron represented himself at the criminal trial, as he was entitled to do. [ 6 ] Turning to the argument that the trial judge erred by instructing the jury that it was not its role to determine whether the court had jurisdiction over Mr.

Patron and the offence for which he was being prosecuted, we find that this ground of appeal also has no merit.

During the precharge discussions among the trial judge, Mr. Patron, and the Crown prosecutor, Mr. Patron specifically requested that thetrial judge leave this issue to the jury. The trial judge refused. In his charge to the jury, the trial judge said this: “Mr. Patron also talkedabout some of his concerns with these proceedings. I must direct you not to consider those concerns as possible defences. They include hischallenge to the jurisdiction of the prosecution, or court … .

Those concerns are not relevant to your work as jurors”. [7] The jurisdiction of the Court of King’s Bench to adjudicate on the charge that Mr. Patron was facing was a question of law. Ata trial, questions of law are the exclusive domain of the trial judge and are not to be decided by the jury: R v Gunning, 2005 SCC 27 atpara 27, [2005] 1 SCR 627. As such, there is no merit in Mr. Patron’s submission regarding the jury instructions on jurisdiction. [8] The only legal argument that can be extracted from the remaining grounds of appeal and Mr.

Patron’s oral submissions is anassertion that the trial judge erred in finding that the Court of King’s Bench had jurisdiction to try him on the charge in question. The trialjudge addressed various jurisdictional arguments in two pretrial rulings, given in response to written and oral applications by Mr. Patron: Rv Patron, 2022 SKQB 46, and R v Patron, 2022 SKKB 206. The applications were dismissed. [9] Additionally, at numerous points during the voir dire and the trial, Mr. Patron sought to compel the trial judge to “declarethese proceedings in the name of Her Majesty the Queen”.

At the start of the voir dire, Mr. Patron stated that “we do not consent to theseproceedings unless they’ve been declared in the name of Her Majesty the Queen” and repeated these words at various points thereafter. Healso asserted that the death of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, while the prosecution was ongoing, resulted in jurisdiction being lost.Lastly, he appears to have argued that he had some form of religious immunity from prosecution. [10] None of Mr. Patron’s arguments on jurisdiction have any basis in law.

Unfortunately, it appears that the information he hasgathered through his research has resulted in him being duped into believing that some special combination of words, beliefs, and obscurearguments provided him with immunity from prosecution. These sorts of assertions and theories fail every time they are raised, yet theycontinue to be circulated to the detriment of all those who attempt to rely on them. The leading cases in this area have repeatedly beenbrought to Mr. Patron’s attention in the past, but he has not seen fit to take counsel from them. [11] The events in question occurred in Saskatchewan.

The matter proceeded by way of indictment under s. 319(2)(

a) of theCriminal Code. The Court of King’s Bench is a superior court of criminal jurisdiction: s. 2 of the Criminal Code, and MacMillan BloedelLtd. v Simpson, (SCC), [1995] 4 SCR 725. As such, the Court of King’s Bench had jurisdiction to try this matter pursuantto s. 468 and s. 470 of the Criminal Code. [12] The death of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, during the prosecution of the charges did not result in a loss of jurisdiction. Thedemise of the reigning monarch has no effect on existing prosecutions: s. 46(2) of the

Interpretation Act, RSC 1985, c I-21, and s. 2-21 ofThe Legislation Act, SS 2019, c L-10.2. [13] Lastly, an individual’s strongly held, personal religious belief that they are exempt from prosecution does not make it so.Regardless of an accused’s beliefs, the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan has jurisdiction to prosecute a person who is charged inan indictment with a violation of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code, which is alleged to have occurred within the province.

Such prosecutionsmay involve defences under s. 319(3) that delve into religious issues, but that reality does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court of King’sBench. [14] Mr. Patron has already served the custodial portion of his sentence, leaving only his probation order. In oral argument, he madeno substantive arguments against his sentence. [15] The appeals from conviction and sentence are dismissed.