Note:  This is supplemental information that was requested by Supreme Court Justice Maczko after his concern of a "Charter Violation" relating to the Appellant's presentation of facts regarding Discriminatory Practice in Sections 24 and 41 of the Victoria City Bylaw.

Justice Maczko stated in open court that the exemptions I have outlined in the submitted material "IS A VIOLATION".

However, please note that in his Reasons For Judgement the Justice never even addresses this Violation, nor in fact the Magna Carta issues (raised in argument), which is the law of the Land in Canada today, by Authority of the Queen and British Parliament who gave our Charter it's authority to protect our Magna Carta (and other) historical rights [re: s. 26]. 

This failure, of the judge, to address this outstanding issue of law has lead to my being granted leave for appeal to the BC Court of Appeal in late January.

[Update: The BC Court of Appeal likewise ignored the issue, and seemingly indicated that the Motor Vehicle Act was of greater weight, at law, than the Supreme Law that established the Crown, Courts and government itself. In other words, they were so desperate to protect government legislation, that they cancelled out their own authority, and put out an utterly incoherent ruling.... One that is further being used by "Crown" attorney's  to further commit acts of treason and protect unlawful legislation. If you in any way understand the significance of this ruling, you will agree that this will lead to the destruction of Canada as we know it.

The question is: are you, as a watchman and defender of the commonwealth, willing to help us save our heritage and common law birthright? Or are you going to watch Canada become a corporate/government tyranny? Its already happening around you.... and if you don't think so, you should scan more pages of this website. Time is short for us to repair this damage.

_______________________________________________________________

 

No ._V2118357

Victoria  Registry

In the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Summary Conviction Appeal

_____________________________________________

 

 

Supplemental support to May 16, 2001 BC Supreme Court Appeal of Summary Conviction, and Constitutional Challenge by request of presiding Justice.

 

Re: discriminatory privilege as stated in Victoria City Bylaws:

 

As per my request for relief described in my brief entered May 16, 2001 from the Victoria City Bylaws and Motor Vehicle Act, I contend that the Victoria City Bylaws as defined in document 92-84, are discriminatory and without just cause on the following grounds:

 

 

In the Victoria City “Streets and Traffic Bylaw” document No. 92-84  [complete copy attached with this submission] as described in s. 24 & 41, are a list of travellers [described below] granted total exemption from the enforcement of the Victoria City Bylaws: [Emphasis added]

 

Page 26 of  “Streets and Traffic Bylaw” document No. 92-84 s. 24

 

(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.

 

Page 37 & 38 s. 41

 

(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.

 

This issue is whether these exemptions, which appear to clearly violate the Charter, can be justified under Section One (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

In the BC Court of Appeal [1985] 2 S.C.R. as part of my brief, I referred to paragraphs 76, 83 and 85 (among others) wherein the court ruled that Absolute Liability offends s. 7 of the Charter the moment it is open to a judge to impose imprisonment; to which the Crown openly admitted is a possibility given the offence by which I was charged. Furthermore, the court ruled that “public interest” does not save such s. 7 violations under s.1 except in “exceptional conditions, such as natural disasters, the outbreak of war, epidemics, and the like”. Certainly the privileges expressly granted in the Victoria City Bylaws do not fall under such an exemption.

 

There is nothing unique to the individuals listed for exemption to Traffic Bylaw enforcement, with the arguable exception of those readily engaged in emergencies.  The Mayor, City Councillors, City officers and employees, Members of Parliament, M.L.A.’s, etc., cannot make such a special claim. Their duties are no more special than any other citizen of British Columbia or Canada who are likewise engaged in the pursuit of a livelihood, or enjoying their protected right to life, liberty and security of the person, which is the protection I myself expressly asked for in my brief as per s. 6 and 7 of the Charter.

 

It is clear from the Victoria City “Streets and Traffic Bylaw” document No. 92-84 that prima facia evidence exists for a violation of no less than s. 6, 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that this cannot be saved by s. 1 of the Charter.

 

Also directly supported by the above quoted sections is my statement that holidays are not enforced, which includes the heaviest traffic period of before, during and after Christmas when stores are open, which lies in express conflict to the maintenance of an order theory put forth by Crown in their submission, and shows the arbitrary and capricious nature of such a law.

 

(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.

 

If my right to the pursuit of a livelihood as protected under Section 6, and my right to life, liberty and security of the person as protected by section 7, are not valid reasons for my protection from the Victoria City Bylaws and subsequent punishment by fine, seizure or imprisonment, there is, in my humble submission, no coherent argument to be made in support of a unique and narrow exemption for the people specified as exempt in the Bylaws which I have referred to above.

 

And whereas my rights to such freedoms are equal to those granted privilege in the aforesaid Bylaws, it is clear that a violation of the Charter has been proven, and I should receive the protection of the law as sought in my petition before this Honourable Court on May 16, 2001.