The Supreme Court hearing of “Gary” Pro Se: Property Rights and a Constitutional Question
July 24, 2024 Digby Nova Scotia
“My preliminary hearing of my motions were heard, went great, the judge listened, and seemed very interested.
My motions for disclosure, for charter withdrawal, and motion to strike parts of the opposition’s rebuttal (as they filed late) and my constitutional question motion was granted.
I was also able to bring into question the credibility of the municipal building official, with my motions for disclosure and O’Connor application, which will prove she perjured on her sworn affidavit.
I began by asking the court to recognize my unlimited rights as sovereign within my sphere as stated by The Supreme Court regarding the Dominion of Canada and the Legislature as natural persons sovereign within their spheres but not with the unlimited capacity of an individual pursuant SCC case Nova Scotia AG v AG Canada and Lord Nelson Hotel Intervening1. I also provided case law about the perimeter of my land being protected from unreasonable search and seizure… R v Tessling2 case law which quotes R v. Kelly case3 in New Brunswick… explicitly stating unoccupied land is subject to s8 charter protection.
I also got my motion to drop the charter challenge, and make a constitutional question regarding powers of entry s.10 of Building Code act4 without having to invoke the charter, and explained how in Canadian jurisprudence there must have been a way to uphold one’s rights prior to 1982. I explained the charter limits my rights by section 15 and that I don’t want my rights to be limited, that they are to be unlimited pursuant to SCC decision as in the Lord Nelson case pertaining to unlimited rights of the individual.
The Judge listened and seemed very interested in this new approach and agreed to allow me to argue the constitutionality of legislation that has enabled this building official to violate my rights. It will be heard on Dec 19th. We got into some merits of the case, after I presented, the Judge then questioned the municipality that the case against me is lacking in merit, and positioned to the solicitor perhaps they might want to ask themselves if it’s worth pursuing after I pointed to legislation showing that my structure is within the limits of the regulations, and in a zone that allows for accessory buildings without a main building on the lot. As this was their main argument the building officials claim that I cannot build anything without a main building on the lot. I provided the by-law and my zone which permits it. I asked what reason would be given for such measures if there are no zoning issues, no imminent danger, no reasonable probable cause, no complaint, and no public security interest in a remote location? I pointed out my property taxes went from 0-$900 and that the fees and the 5k fines all go into the same general revenue fund that pays their salaries, insurance, litigation and training costs, and that possibly for these reasons an incentive to issue permits on structures not requiring them may be questioned, if not to extort under colour of law and right monies that will end up in their pockets, then what reason?
I pointed to sections 182 & 183 of Municipal Act6 legislation that proves fines and fees and property taxes pays all the above aforementioned expenses. Judge the stated that since nobody mentioned it, he was going to bring it up. The municipality didn’t commence the proceeding correctly, they didn’t issue a summary conviction yet was asking him to order 5k fine without a summary conviction, which is supposed to occur and be brought to supreme by a provincial court first…they instead brought an order without a conviction to the Supreme Court. I mentioned to the Judge they didn’t even give me a summary offence ticket to begin with. He said he knows he saw it in my paperwork. So apparently they are in the wrong court, didn’t commence the proceeding correctly, lack of proper service, failed a deadline for rebuttals affidavit, lack of merit, and lack of jurisdiction. He turned and said to the solicitor, given all of this, perhaps you might want to convene with your clients and see if you want to continue this proceeding. It seems the official may already have made up her mind as to what she wants to do. He pointed to the solicitor and said if there is no reasonable and probable cause then why are we here? The solicitor was left stunned.
The Supreme Court will hear my motions for constitutional question without charter, and Judge seemed very interested and attentive to my situation and to those in the audience as I brought up government overreach and violation of right to self-determination when claiming to legislate what is suitable habitation.
The AEG was there, said they needed more time even though they have had the paperwork since June 20th. I brought up the Loper v. Raimondo case which overruled the Chevron deference7, and the Power case in Canada8, and how the SCC holds government liable for violating our rights, and we can claim damages.
At the court l was happy to see there was a full house present for this case which is not the norm, it let them know the people are watching them! This is a big push for us…. I have until Sept 7th to hand in my argument!”
- https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1950/1950canlii26/1950canlii26.html ↩︎
- https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2183/index.do ↩︎
- https://justis.vlex.com/vid/681511381 ↩︎
- https://nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/statutes/buildcod.ht ↩︎
- https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/pdf/charter-poster.pdf ↩︎
- https://nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/statutes/municipal%20government.pdf ↩︎
- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf ↩︎
- https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20546/index.do ↩︎
Responses