BC "Court" of Appeal

The following case reveals a shockingly incoherent and dangerous opinion from our highest provincial court.

The following case (indexed as CA 28750) presents the following issues at law.

That a morally innocent person should not be subjected to fines, confiscation of property, and threats of death by "authorities rattling around with guns".
That as Canadians, each of us has a Right to the Free (peaceful) use of the "Queen's Highways" as per the Eternal Magna Carta, and corresponding Common Law heritage.
That the makers of a law can not lawfully exempt themselves from the same law.
That section 7 and 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be respected by the courts as the Supreme Law.

These issues arise out of two sections of provincial Legislation and Municipal Bylaw respectively. Namely, the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act s. 83 and 124, and City of Victoria British Columbia Traffic Bylaw 92-84 s.24 and 41. These sections deal with the parking of vehicles on "Crown" land. Section 41 concerns areas with mechanical metering, while both are "time-limited" zones.

[Note: The "Crown" argued issues of safety with regard to parked vehicles. Thus the question is raised: What safety issue is relevant when a car is parked peacefully at the side of the road, without obstruction? The "Crown" never provided any evidence with regard to either safety issues, or alleged "aggrieved parties"]

Consider the following in light of the wording of Section 15 of our so-called Constitution:

In the Victoria City Bylaw, sections 24 (2):

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to the driver of any vehicle belonging to or in use by the City, its agents, servants and employees in the course of their employment as evidenced by appropriate signs or markings or by a notice signed by the City Engineer, City Clerk, or Police Chief and displayed on the vehicle.

And again at section 41 (10)

(10) Subsections (2), (3) and (4) do not apply on holidays or on other days between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., subject to any special regulation made pursuant to this bylaw, and indicated by a sign or signs at or near the metered space, nor to the driver of any vehicle belonging to any of the following classes:

(a) vehicles belonging to the City, its officers, employees and agents and being used in the course of their employment, as evidenced by appropriate signs or markings or by notice signed by the City Engineer, City Clerk, or Police Chief, and displayed on the vehicle;

(b) vehicles belonging to and driven by the Mayor, a City Councillor, a member of Parliament, or a Member of the Legislative Assembly, as evidenced by a notice signed by the City Engineer or Police Chief and displayed on the vehicle;

(c) any vehicles in use by the Canadian Armed Forces or public utilities as may be designated as emergency vehicles by the City Engineer;

(d) vehicles in use by an organized Fire Department or Police Department, and ambulances;

(e) vehicles bearing the distinguishing flag or insignia of His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia or of the Senior Officer commanding the Canadian Armed Forces on Vancouver Island.

[Note: with regard to 41 (d) the exemptions are not for emergencies, but any use by fire departments or police. In other words, they are excluded whether on a legitimate emergency call, or merely a donut break.]

So what penalities could someone expect for parking without plugging a meter, or staying a few minutes over what the bylaw states?

Subsection (g) of s.124 of the MVA, allows for the forceful:

“removal, detention or impounding of vehicles unlawfully occupying a portion of a highway or public place, and a scale of fees, costs and expenses for that purpose” .

What does "unlawfully occupying" mean? It means they have forced you to put money in the meter, and you better do it, or they will steal your car. [The people who made this "law" do not have to put money in the meter, however, and can park in time limited zones as long as they wish] That sound like a just law to you?

Likewise, subsection (h) allows for:

“the recovery of the fees, costs and expenses from the owner or by sale of the vehicle referred to in paragraph (g) at public auction or by action in a court of competent jurisdiction”;

So, if your vehicle is towed, you better have the $300 for towing and storage, or say bye bye to your car. Legalized theft in Canada, with the thief profiting and parking free from the penalties of the law they created.

And likewise in subsection (u):

“the enforcement of bylaws adopted under this section by fine or imprisonment, or both, and imposing fines, penalties and costs;”

All this for parking your car peacefully on the Queen's highways, without obstruction to traffic or injury to any other party.

Such a law is not lawful on its own, because it violates the long-standing common law right of free use of the highways; however when combined with the exemptions to the very people who took that right away, it becomes clear (even to the most profoundly inept in legal matters) that a violation of section 15 of the Constitution is in effect. Furthermore, the deprivation of liberty (free use of the highway, access to market) and security (freedom from government aggression and theft) is NOT IN ACCORDANCE with the "fundamental principles of justice" or "Rule of Law" that our governments consented to.

So what has the Supreme Court of Canada said about the meaning of the phrase "fundamental principles of justice" ? Here's a look at their opinion back in 1985:

Re: BC Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. [emphasis added]

22 ..this analysis is to be undertaken, and the purpose of the right or freedom in question is to be sought by reference to the character and the larger objects of the Charter* [….] to the historical origins* of the concepts enshrined, and where applicable, to the meaning and purpose of the other specific rights and freedoms with which it is associated within the text of the Charter. The interpretation should be, as the judgment in Southam emphasizes, a generous rather than a legalistic one, aimed at fulfilling the purpose of the guarantee and securing for individuals the full benefit of the Charter's protection.

[* s.26 of Canada Act includes full rights and freedoms of Eternal Magna Carta]

Keep this opinion at hand when you read the "reasons for judgment" of our BC "Court" of Appeal.

But what about the "Crown" theory that without parking regulations for us serfs, and free parking for our grand rulers, we would have blood a meter deep in the street? Does "free use of the Queen's highway" mean anything goes? Or is there a legal theory that respects the balance of Rights and Reciprocal duty?

Consider the decision of Justice Egbert of the Supreme Court of Alberta,1959 {28 WWR, 36 R v Minister of Highways}, who eloquently and succinctly puts to rest any outstanding ambiguities, with a defensible and principled balance between our long-standing, historical, and ‘Sovereign protected’ Right to travel the Kings/Queen’s highways in peace, versus the “duty” of Crown to reasonably regulate highways for issues of demonstrable safety, in protecting the RIGHTS of other travellers.

"At the outset I must express my shocked amazement at the contention of counsel for the minister that the claim of a resident of Alberta to a driver’s licence—and consequently to drive upon the highways of Alberta—is a privilege and not a right.

Since time immemorial the Queen’s subjects have been free to move along the Queen’s highway provided only they kept the Queen’s peace. While the requirement of technical competence in the operation of that modern mode of conveyance, the motor vehicle, may, for the public safety, require the subject to prove that competence, as a condition to the issue of a licence to drive — and the consequent right to drive - that requirement does not reduce a “right” to a “privilege.” Because it is my duty to be technically competent to drive, my right to drive is not destroyed, although it may be taken away from me or suspended if I fail in the performance of my duty. The introduction of a dangerous mode of conveyance has not destroyed or impaired my right, but it has enlarged my duty. The keeping of the Queen’s peace now embraces an obligation on me to be so technically and physically competent that I shall not drive to the danger of any other of Her Majesty’s subjects. When I have fulfilled my obligation, when I have performed my duty, my right to move freely upon the Queen’s highway remains intact and unimpaired."

The phrase "since time immemorial" is particularly noteworthy, since it is through the common law Right established during the reign of King Alfred the Great (if not before) that all of us "have been free to move along the Queen's highway provided only [they] kept the Queen's peace."