“A Man Known as Cameron Hardy”

I.         INTRODUCTION

26 I agree with
the caution expressed by Lord Denning in Balogh that the power of
summary punishment is a great but necessary one that
is to be used with scrupulous care.

II.         OPCA ARGUMENTS

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, let alone 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 populations confirm there are true
believers in this community who are driven by a combination of conspiratorial
and political beliefs, reinforced in a kind 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, including increased litigation damages and
costs, criminal sanctions, psychiatric detention, foreclosed homes, and broken
families. In a very real sense, OPCA litigants are the victims of the conman
gurus who sell supposed secrets to the real but concealed law. Worse, OPCA
theories 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 and pseudoscience frauds, courts are the
expert bodies logically and functionally positioned to refute OPCA
misconceptions with clear, substantive, and responsive court decisions.

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.

…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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

III.        FACTUAL BACKGROUND

May
15, 2021

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.

*           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.

 May
17, 2021

May
18, 2021

May
26, 2021

June
23, 2021

July
7, 2021

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

January 12, 2022

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.

January
26, 2022

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.”

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.

March
14, 2022 – Hardy’s Second Scheduled Trial Date

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 hopefully be
outside of this mask mandate, okay? Because I think that is being used
obviously by Mr. Hardy to his advantage.

So,
let’s set this for — I get no useful assistance from Mr. Hardy whatsoever. So,
I am going to adjourn this to a day suggested by the Crown to fix a date. I am
hoping — I have no idea when this is going to be lifted, but I think it is
going to be — I mean, I am hoping it is going to be soon. I mean, it is being
lifted in society at large, so — so, what I am going to do is put this over
for one week. Is that acceptable? With the trial coordinator, and then set a
new date for trial, and my expectation is the mask mandate will be lifted by
that point and then everything can be dealt with at the same time.

Now,
I am going to direct that the warrant be held to that fix date, okay? So, seven
days from now.

I
would accept this individual’s assistance on the Teams link, but he has been of
absolutely no assistance up to now. So, it will be at 1:30 on March the 21st.
He can appear by telephone at that fix date, and if he is difficult, then the
Crown — if he starts using all this language with the JCM, my view is you set
the trial date over his whatever he talks about. You set your Provincial Court
trial. Set it for a day and a half, and my hope is that that is set at a time
that the mask mandate is lifted so the court can have him here in person to
deal with the trial matters.

I apologize for the
inconvenience that this man has been allowed to cause the court, the witnesses,
and so forth and if it was not for this mask issue, we would be proceeding, but
I am just worried I am setting everyone up for a more complicated future if we
proceed ex parte and so that’s my direction and order, okay?

March
21, 2022

April
27, 2022

September
1, 2022 – Hardy’s Third Scheduled Trial Date

I am not the defendant.
I have the defendant here before this court, known as Cameron Hardy. I have the
birth certificate that is the defendant in my hand. And I’ve surrendered it to
the court. Bailiff, you can take this. That is the defendant, Your Honour,
birth certificate, and I, a man, am here to press a claim before this court, so
while they wish to press their complaint, I’ll press my claim, and I require to
do so before a trial by jury.

I do understand that,
Your Honour, but I do believe — or I comprehend what you’re saying, but I do
believe this complaint is in violation of my rights as a man, so I’m here to
press a claim on my side of the court, while they go ahead and press their
complaint and I’d like to do so by trial by jury. Now, that said, I do not
consent to any legal contract, and it’s not my intent to use the benefits of
the legal society here today as I’m not part of the bar association. I’m not
the defendant. I am the man known as Cameron Hardy. I’ve surrendered the birth
certificate to the courts already. I am the man known as Cameron Hardy, and I
believe I’ve committed no wrongs here before this court, but if there is a
wrong, if a man or woman is making a claim I did a wrong, I’m more than happy
to hear any claim before this court. However, that said, Your Honour, I’m also
here as man and the reason I’m here as a man is to press a claim trial by jury
because I believe wrongs of trespass have been done against I, a man, which
include unlawful confinement and extortion by the man Kanil Youngman who acts
as police officer, unlawful confinement by the man Christopher Askey who acts
as police officer, unlawful confinement by the woman Britney Doney who acts as
police officer, and bear true by the man Kyle Schille who acts as prosecutor.
And I’ve noticed them of this claim in violation of my rights, and they have
not provided me remedy for their wrongs, so I’m here to present facts and
evidence to support said claim of said wrongs and/or trespassed against I, your
fellow man.

I’m not going to be at
the mercy of one legal entity of the same organization as this legal entity
next to me known as the prosecutor, and you’re all part of the same club. This
is not an impartial tribunal here before this court. I require a trial by jury,
as is my right.

But you know what? I
have no problem apologizing. I apologize to every man and woman here, who are
bearing witness to this. And I love everyone here. I love everyone here, and I
ask for forgiveness. And I thank everyone here.

1.         He
is a peaceful, honourable man.

2.         He
is not a person, a human being, or any of that.

3.         He
is a man of mankind.

4.         He is
entitled to a trial by jury to press his claim of trespass and wrongs committed
against him.

5.         He
is not present for the legal court.

6.         He
is not interested in participating.

7.         As
the case judge, I do not have the right to make a ruling.

8.         As
the case judge, I do not have the jurisdiction to judge him.

9.         He is not
part of the legal society.

There’s no way I’m
getting any legal advice. I’m not part of the bar association. We are mankind
seated as jury is the law. Now, if the jury decides that this mask mandate and
this kind of nonsense is redundant and stupid — they can order jury
nullification and get rid of that kind of nonsense.

1.         Act
dignifiedly, heed the court’s orders and directions, and participate in the
trial process.

2.         Continue
to engage in the same behaviour as he had in the morning session, which would
leave me with no choice but to order him to accompany the sheriff to the
courthouse cells, where he would be linked into the courtroom by closed circuit
TV. From the courthouse cells, he would be able to hear and see the witnesses
and court proceedings. He would also have the right to cross-examine the
witnesses called by the prosecution.

3.         Continue
engaging in the same behaviour as he did in the morning session. If he refuses
to accompany the sheriff to the courthouse cells, I may find him in contempt of
court and have him arrested and transported to the courthouse cells under
arrest.

I’m speaking now, and
you’re cutting me off like last time. I’d like to hand a copy to the sheriff.
Please give a copy to the Crown. To the man known as Kyle Schille. And the man
known as, the man acting as judge, known as Calvin – known as David Peterson on
and for the record.

September
2, 2022

Yes, Your Honour. If he
is going to be in custody on the contempt charge, Crown would apply to revoke
on his other outstanding matter. I received word this morning from probation as
well that the man referred to as Cameron Hardy has not been reporting to his
bail supervisor. So on that basis, a 512 warrant was approved by another Crown,
but I held off on that before it was pushed through. I, of course, knew that
Mr. Hardy was in custody, and I can provide that information to Your Honour
directly, and it could be dealt with that way.

I then stood the court down so Hardy could
participate in the proceedings via video from the courthouse cells.

CNSL
K. SCHILLE: Your Honour, Schille, first initial K. for the Provincial Crown.
Recalling the matter of Cameron Hardy, Court File 30766-1. The man commonly
referred to as Cameron is by video. I should inform Your Honour at the outset,
I have been provided some relevant information by the man commonly referred to
as Cameron’s friends and family. I have been informed that the man commonly
referred to as Cameron’s mother is extremely sick at the hospital and has been
for the last six months. So that may explain some of the conduct in relation to
the non-reporting.

THE
COURT: All right. So what is the Crown’s position then? Are you seeking to have
the January release order revoked or not then?

CNSL K. SCHILLE: Your
Honour, with that information in mind, Crown is content for the current release
order to stand. In fact, I suppose the reporting condition that was breached is
likely not necessary in the circumstances. Mr. Hardy has showed up to his court
dates. I think hopefully if there is a further date, an amicus will be
appointed. 

Yes, Your Honour.
Crown’s position is that bail would be appropriate on both matters. I do not
think there is a primary or secondary ground risk there.

1.         To
set a date with the Judicial Case Manager for the punishment phase of the in
facie contempt of court finding;

2.         To
determine if an amicus curiae has been appointed for
Hardy; and

3.         To set dates
for the continuation of the substantive trial.

September
9, 2022

Now, what am I to do
about the fact that I am — do not have the accused here? He was released out
of custody without signing the documents. He was sitting with his back to me on
the video with his hands over his ears, and although he had a very strong
representation in the gallery of the courtroom, I am not prepared to take any
kind of judicial notice that he would have known from somebody other than
myself what his returnable date is, since he did not sign the papers and would
not interact with the justice of the peace.

The
problem with me going to an unendorsed warrant, quite frankly — if I wanted
this man in custody, I wouldn’t have given him bail last Friday. That’s simple.
That’s just going to make — I’m not going to penalize him ahead of hearing
from yourself and Crown what you think the appropriate penalty is, and the
detention order, I think, in his mind — even though those of us that work
within the legal system may have a different view, I think, in his mind, he
would see that as the punishment he’s receiving for the contempt, and I want to
make it clear that it wasn’t punishment for the contempt and you’ve got — he’s
gotten bail on that.

So if we do an
unendorsed warrant, I’ll be frank, my fear is he gets in front of a different
judge and that judge just detains him, and now we’re left with him detained and
now we’ve moved to an in-custody trial, and we’ll have to move quickly, so
again, no point in fixing any dates today.

There
will be an endorsed warrant in relation to the contempt of court. There will be
an endorsed warrant in relation to the substantive obstruction charge. I will
change the endorsement on it to read that he may be released from police
custody upon being told the dates returnable for court, place returnable for
court, and time returnable for court in relation to both the contempt of court
sentencing and the substantive obstruction charge. 

I am going to also
require that, in the Affidavit of Service, the individual who serves Cameron
Hardy confirm in the Affidavit of Service that they verbally told him and were
satisfied that he knows the date, time, and place for his next court
appearances.

October
25, 2022

November
23, 2022

THE
COURT: Thank you. Please go ahead, Mr. Hardy.

HARDY:
Well, you guys asked me to be here. So, how can I help you? I thought this
matter was discharged — concluded –

THE
COURT: On —

HARDY: — but
apparently you guys still have an issue with me. So, [indiscernible/overlapping
speakers].

THE
COURT: Mr. Hardy, it is my intention to set a continuation for February 21 in
Prince Rupert, courtroom 200 with Judge Patterson. Are you available for that
date?

HARDY:
I will be present to — I would prefer something further out. If possible in
March. I am out of country, and I do have a lot of things booked — paid for.
So to not incur cost, March would work better for me, and I would be present to
press a claim at open court for a trial by jury, as is my right, as I’ve been
saying all along. Not interested in participating in the legal side of the
court

THE
COURT: So —

HARDY: —
[indiscernible/overlapping speakers] before a jury of my peers.

HARDY:
I think we’ll require a couple days in jury selection and all that, but I’ll be
back before that date for sure and I’ll be [indiscernible/remote audio] claim
and updating with cost and expenses and all that. So, yeah, April 18th, 19th,
two days. That’s what we’d be doing? [Indiscernible/overlapping speakers].

THE
COURT: No. I’m setting only one date. It will be April 18 at 9:30 in courtroom
200. That’s the instructions that I have from the judge, is to set one day.

HARDY: Okay. That’s
okay. I’ll just press my claim beforehand and I’ll require two days, but we can
just talk about that when I get back to town.

April
18, 2023 – Hardy’s Fourth Scheduled Trial Date

V.        FURTHER DISCUSSION

Both civil and criminal
contempt of court rest on the power of the court to uphold its dignity and
process.  The rule of law is at the heart of our society; without it there
can be neither peace, nor order nor good government.  The rule of law is
directly dependent on the ability of the courts to enforce their process and
maintain their dignity and respect.  To maintain their process and respect,
courts since the 12th century have exercised the power to punish for contempt
of court.

The power to deal with
contempt as part of the inherent and essential jurisdiction of the courts has
existed, it is said, as long as the courts themselves (see Fox, The
History of Contempt of Court, 1972, p. 1). This power was necessary, and
remains so, to enable the orderly conduct of the court’s business and to
prevent interference with the court’s proceedings. Contempt powers existed for
both superior courts and courts of inferior jurisdiction, but the jurisdiction
of the inferior courts was limited to contempt in the face, or in the presence,
of the court…

Contempt
of court is a common law crime, preserved as such by s. 9 of
the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. It is a sanction that
courts have imposed for centuries to uphold the public’s confidence in and
respect for the administration of justice: see United Nurses of Alberta v.
Alberta (Attorney General), 1992 CanLII 99 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901
at pp. 930-32, 9 C.R.R. (2d) 29, per McLachlin J.

Although
criminal contempts may take a variety of forms, as Lord Diplock said in A.-G.
v. Leveller Magazine Ltd., [1979] A.C. 440
at p. 449, [1979] 1 All E.R. 745 (H.L.):

.
. . they all share a common characteristic: they involve an interference with
the due administration of justice either in a particular case or more generally
as a continuing process.

Several decisions of
the Supreme Court of Canada have discussed the definition of criminal contempt.
In substance, the offence consists of acts which obstruct or interfere with the
administration of justice or which tend to do so and acts which show disrespect
for the court and its processes…

…There
are two types of conduct which come within the scope of criminal contempt.
Firstly, there is contempt in the face of the court. This type of offence
encompasses any word spoken or act done in or in the precinct of the court
which obstructs or interferes with the due administration of justice or is
calculated to do so. It would include assaults committed in the court, insults
to the court made in the presence of the court, interruption of court
proceedings, a refusal of a witness to be sworn or, after being sworn, refusal
to answer. Secondly, the offence may be committed by acts which are committed
outside the court. Contempt not in the face of the court includes words spoken
or published or acts done which are intended to interfere or are likely to
interfere with the fair administration of justice. Examples of that type of
contempt are publications which are intended or are likely to prejudice the fair
trial or conduct of a criminal or civil proceeding or publications which
scandalize or otherwise lower the authority of the court, and acts which would
obstruct persons having duties to discharge in a court of justice: see R. v.
Cohn (1984), 1984 CanLII 43 (ON CA), 48 O.R. (2d) 65 at pp. 70-1, 13
D.L.R. (4th) 680 at pp. 685-6, 15 C.C.C. (3d) 150 at p. 156 (C.A.).

R.
v. Gray, [1900] 2 Q.B. 36, was the first case to hold that
it is a criminal offence to bring the administration of justice into disrepute
by scandalizing the court, that is to say by performing an act or uttering
words that are calculated to bring a court into contempt or lower its
authority. In that case Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. defined the offence, at
p. 40, in the following words:

Any
act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or a judge of the
Court into contempt, or to lower his authority, is a contempt of Court. That is
one class of contempt. Further, any act done or writing published calculated to
obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of
the Courts is a contempt of Court. The former class belongs to the category
which Lord Hardwicke L.C. characterised as “scandalising a Court or a
judge.” That description of that class of contempt is to be taken subject
to one and an important qualification. Judges and Courts are alike open to
criticism, and if reasonable argument or expostulation is offered against any
judicial act as contrary to law or the public good, no Court could or would
treat that as contempt of Court. The law ought not to be astute in such cases
to criticise adversely what under such circumstances and with such an object is
published; but it is to be remembered that in this matter the liberty of the
press is no greater and no less than the liberty of every subject of the Queen.
Now, as I have said, no one has suggested that this is not a contempt of Court,
and nobody has suggested, or could suggest, that it falls within the right of
public criticism in the sense I have described. It is not criticism, I repeat
that it is personal scurrilous abuse of a judge as a judge.

The
principle thus enunciated in R. v. Gray, supra, was adopted by
the Supreme Court of Canada in Re Duncan (1958), 1957 CanLII 90
(SCC), 11 D.L.R. (2d) 616, [1958] S.C.R. 41. The Supreme Court was there
dealing with statements made in court by Mr. Duncan, who had objected to one of
the justices sitting on the Appeal which he was about to argue. The act
complained of might have been categorized as one of contempt in the face of the
court. None the less, Chief Justice Kerwin cited with approval and quoted from R.
v. Gray. At p. 618 D.L.R., p. 44 S.C.R., of Chief Justice Kerwin’s reasons
the following appears:

It
has been stated by Lord Russell of Killowen C.J. in R. v. Gray, [1900] 2 Q.B. 36 at p. 40, that Judges and
Courts are alike open to criticism, and if reasonable argument or expostulation
is offered against any judicial act as contrary to law or the public good, no
Court could or would treat that as contempt of Court. However, Lord Russell had
already pointed out that any act done calculated to bring a Court into contempt
or to lower its authority is a contempt of Court and belongs to that category
which Lord Chancellor Hardwicke had as early as 1742 characterized as
“scandalising a Court or a judge”. The matter is put succinctly in 8
Hals., 3rd ed., p. 5: “The power to fine and imprison for a contempt
committed in the face of the court is a necessary incident to every court of
justice. It is a contempt of any court of justice to disturb and obstruct the
court by insulting it in its presence and at a time when it is actually sitting
… It is not from any exaggerated notion of the dignity of individuals that
insults to judges are not allowed, but because there is imposed upon the court
the duty of preventing brevi manu any attempt to interfere with the
administration of justice.”

The
presumption of innocence applies in criminal contempts not in the face of the
Court, and the alleged contemnor must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.

            …..

Contempt in the face of
the Court is, in my view, distinguished from contempt not in the face of the
court, on the footing that all the circumstances of the alleged contempt are in
the personal knowledge of the Court. The presiding judge can then deal
summarily with the matter without embarrassment of having to be a witness to
issues of fact which may be in dispute because of events occurring outside.

87        Second,
contempt not in the face of the court is generally prosecuted like any other
crime by the Attorney General, who gathers the evidence and presents the case
to the court.  This follows from the fact that the contempt is not
committed in the presence of the court.  Unlike contempt in facie,
which Parliament has left within the purview of the court where it was
committed, the court whose order has been allegedly traversed will usually have
no evidence itself of ex facie contempt, and cannot pursue it
without the intervention of the Attorney General.  For example, in the
case at bar, the superior court judge had no personal knowledge of who had
demonstrated, let alone when or where the injunction was supposedly
violated.  As in the case of any other crime, trial of the contempt was
dependent on a case presented by the prosecution…

Actus
Reus and Mens Rea

[63]
I take from U.N.A. that the common law crime of contempt nevertheless
requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to the actus reus and of the
mens rea, although the requisite mens rea can be inferred from
all the surrounding circumstances.

[64] U.N.A. dealt
with an ex facie contempt in which the “public” nature of the allegedly
contumacious behaviour was a critical element. In the context of an in facie
contempt, a public act outside the precinct of the court is not required.
What is required however is an act committed in the face of the court, by an
accused, with knowledge that the act “will tend to depreciate the authority of
the court.”…

Principles
and Purposes of Sentencing for Contempt of Court

[53]      In short, in cases of criminal contempt, the concept of
parity, as applied to the circumstances of the offence, must take into account
the persistence of the “open, continuous and flagrant violation of a court
order.” The longer the violation continues, the greater the need for general
deterrence to preserve the rule of law. The suggestion that the concept of
parity depends upon a contemnor’s understanding of the severity of the sentence
he or she will receive fails to take into account the nature of the offence and
relevance of general deterrence as a sentencing principle for that offence.

…..

[55]      Contempt of court is the only remaining common law
offence in Canada. As such, sentencing is not governed by the principles
in s. 718 of the Code, though they provide a useful
backdrop. Sections 718 and 718.1 of the Code provide:

718 The fundamental
purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime
prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just,
peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of
the following objectives:

(a) to denounce
unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is
caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the
offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate
offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in
rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide
reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a
sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to
victims or to the community.

…..

718.1 A
sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of
responsibility of the offender.

[56]      The objectives of separating offenders from society and
providing reparation to victims are generally not applicable to sentencing in
contempt cases. Rehabilitation is often important in civil contempt cases,
where the Court is primarily concerned with securing compliance with its
orders: Larkin v. Glase, 2009 BCCA 321 at para. 49.
However in Larkin, Justice Chiasson comments that even in cases of
civil contempt deterrence is more important than rehabilitation (at
para. 51).

[57]      Denunciation and deterrence are the principal
sentencing objectives in criminal contempt cases. Chief Justice Farris described
the underlying rationale in Canadian
Transport (U.K.) Ltd. v. Alsbury (1952), 1952 CanLII 430
(BC SC), 6 W.W.R. (N.S.) 473 at 478 (B.C.S.C.), aff’d 1952 CanLII 218
(BC CA), [1953] 1 D.L.R. 385 (C.A.), aff’d 1953 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1953] 1
S.C.R. 516:

One
law broken and the breach thereof ignored is but an invitation to ignore
further laws and this, if continued, can only result in the breakdown of the
freedom under the law which we so greatly prize.

[58]      General deterrence was the primary objective of sentencing
in MacMillan Bloedel, where the focus was likewise on securing
respect for the rule of law. A summary of sentencing principles for contempt
was set out in Transportaction Lease Systems Inc. v. Virdi, 2009
BCSC 695 at para. 17, citing Health Care Corp. of
St. John’s v. Newfoundland and Labrador Assn. of Public and Private
Employees, [2001] N.J. No. 17
(S.C.T.D.) at para. 2:

1.
The inherent jurisdiction of the court, as a superior court, allows for the
imposition of a wide range of penalties for civil and criminal contempt;

2.
Deterrence, both general and specific, but especially general deterrence, as
well as denunciation, are the most important factors to be considered in the
imposition of penalties for civil, as well as criminal, contempt;

..…

9.
In setting the overall level of penalty, the court may take account of the
level of penalty imposed in similar cases in the past and may adjust the
penalty upwards or downwards, depending on the court’s assessment as to whether
previous levels of penalty have had an effective general deterrent effect; …

[59]      In Lacasse,
the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that “proportionality is determined both
on an individual basis, that is, in relation to the accused him or herself and
to the offence committed by the accused, and by comparison with sentences
imposed for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
Individualization and parity of sentences must be reconciled for a sentence to
be proportionate”: at para. 53. It is not unusual for custodial sentences
to be applied for criminal contempt: see Justice Burnyeat’s review of British
Columbia decisions where contemnors were given carceral sentences in Transportaction
Lease Systems at para. 13. As stated by McLachlin J., “[t]here is
no doubt that criminal contempt may result in imprisonment, constituting a
denial of liberty”: United Nurses at 930. Indeed, in The
Law of Contempt in Canada (Toronto: Carswell, 1997), Jeffery Miller
states “the general principle is that criminal contempts are to be answered with
penal sanctions” (at 129).

Court’s
Decision to Not Immediately Sentence Hardy on September 1, 2022

Moral
Blameworthiness

i.         the
actions of Hardy on September 1, 2022, on their own, and in the context of his
actions before and after September 1, 2022,

ii.         the
harm to the trial process, and

iii.        the harm to
society at large,

undoubtedly,
Hardy’s moral blameworthiness is at the highest end of the spectrum.

Aggravating
and Mitigating Factors

1.         The
brazen nature of Hardy’s refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the Canadian
court system and his reliance upon nonsensical OPCA-type arguments.

2.         Hardy’s
continued refusal to comply with the orders and directions of the court.

3.         Hardy’s
delay tactics on September 1, 2022, resulted in the loss of two days of
scheduled trial time.

1.         Hardy
has no criminal record.

Sentencing
Range for Contempt of Court

i.         British Columbia Securities
Commission v. Williams

[1]
THE COURT: The elements of civil contempt for breach of a court order are:

i)
the existence of the order;

ii)
knowledge on the part of the alleged contemptor of the existence of the order
and its terms; and

iii)
the alleged contemptor did one or more acts amounting to disobedience of the
terms of the order.

[2]
I am satisfied on the evidence before me that all three elements of civil
contempt have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

[3]
This matter involves Ms. Penko, a judgment debtor, who has been found by the
British Columbia Securities Commission (“BCSC”) to be indebted to it in the sum
of $195,000 as of September 22, 2016. Post-judgment interest has been accruing
since that date, and the outstanding judgment now exceeds $200,000.

[4]
It is plain to me that Ms. Penko is of the view that neither BCSC nor this
court has any jurisdiction over her, and that she intends to steadfastly refuse
to submit to any jurisdiction of this court.

[5] Because I am more
than satisfied that any imposition of monetary penalty will be futile in this
case, I am going to order, because I think it is the only order available at
this point, that Ms. Penko be remanded in custody for 30 days commencing today,
that she give up her passport, and at the end of 30 days, she can reappear
before me and she will be given an opportunity to explain why her contempt of
this court has been purged. At that time if she is successful in doing so, we
will deal with how best to proceed with this matter.

ii.         R. v. Vallieres (No. 2)

From
this perspective, I would substitute:

(a)
to the sentence of six months plus one month imposed on January 19, 1970,
appealed by appeal 3318, a sentence of four months and one month concurrent
(the said sentences having been entirely served);

(b) to the consecutive
sentences of 6 months, 6 months and one month imposed on April 27 and 28, 1971,
and appealed by appeal 3687, two sentences of two months and 11 days and one
sentence of one month, all three concurrent and in any case having been served
already by the appellant.

Vallieres (No. 2)
suggests that a range from one month to six months imprisonment for contempt of
court is appropriate, depending on the severity of the contemptuous conduct.

iii.        R. v. Karim

The appellant was
sentenced to two terms of imprisonment, one of ten months for intentionally
setting fire to a mattress in a correctional institute, and the other of six
months for contempt in the face of the Court, having told the sentencing judge,
Judge Lavoie, to “fuck off” and having later called him a
“bastard.”


Saying he was highly frustrated at the time of his appearance in Court, did not
fully appreciate the norms of behaviour in Canadian Courts, and has since come
to regret his disrespectful outbursts, the appellant asks that the six month sentence,
at least, be reduced.


In a report to this Court, Judge Lavoie said he imposed the six month sentence
to demonstrate to the accused the need for appropriate behaviour in the
Courts.  He went on to recommend that it be reassessed in the light of its
impact, if any, upon the man’s attitude.


Given the appellant’s respectful conduct before us, together with his
expressions of regret, we are satisfied that the contempt sentence has its
desired effect, and accordingly we have decided to reduce it from six to two
months.


There is no basis for interfering with the other sentence. It was a fit one in
the circumstances.


It follows, then, that the ten month sentence will stand, and that the other
will be reduced to two months to be served concurrently with another, similar
sentence, but consecutively to the ten month sentence.  In all the
appellant will serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months for these offences.

iv.        Amyotte
and Abdullah

7         On
June 7^th, the appellants refused transportation to the court
house from the jail where they were held. Jacob did attend before the
court, but refused to be sworn, affirm or testify.  Despite the court’s
urging, Jacob declined to change his mind and requested that he be sentenced
right away.  The matter was put over to the next day to enable him, at the
court’s insistence, to obtain counsel.  An experienced criminal defence
counsel appeared later that day as amicus curiae to offer
advice to Jacob and advised the court that she would speak with the appellants
as well as Jacob.

8         The
next morning, June 8^th, Jacob again refused to testify. 
Counsel confirmed that she had advised him of his rights and options.  He
was then convicted of contempt.  The sentencing hearing promptly followed
and Jacob was sentenced to three years in jail with a recommendation for no
parole eligibility.

14        He concluded that general
deterrence was the most important factor in the sentencing; in the result, the
appellant Abdullah was sentenced to a period of 42 months in jail, and Amyotte
48 months, with a recommendation that there be no early release or
parole.  The difference in the two sentences was accounted for by the fact
that the appellant Abdullah’s background was somewhat more favourable than that
of Amyotte.

15        In
due course, Jacob appealed his sentence.  On January 24, 2008, this
court reduced the sentence from three years to two on the basis that it was
unfit because “it is simply too long” (2008 MBCA 7 at
para. 31).

32        With respect
to the sentence, in my opinion a sentence of 36 months for each of the
appellants is appropriate in the circumstances.  I agree with counsel for
the appellants that following this court’s decision in Jacob, sentences of 42 and
48 months, notwithstanding the seriousness and contemptuous conduct of the
appellants, are simply too long.

v.         R. v.
McDowell

…I am satisfied on the
basis of the law respecting contempt that on two occasions, on
December 15th, 2014, and on December 19th, 2014, when you were cited
by Mr. Justice Betton for contempt, that you had in fact advanced your
notion of what was relevant and necessary to make your points on your case to a
degree that infringed upon the appropriate boundaries within which court
proceedings in this country are conducted, and that in embarking on a very
serious and sustained ad hominem — that is against the
person attacked — on the presiding justice, you committed a contempt in the
face of the court.

Justice McEwan then sentenced an
apologetic McDowell in R. v. McDowell, 2015 BCSC 1478, as follows:

[1]        THE COURT:  I have considered the very fair
submission made by the Crown in this matter.  I have considered what
Mr. McDowell says on his own behalf.

[2]        I think part of the problem in this case proceeds from
Mr. McDowell’s wholly erroneous estimation of the effect he has in making
his submissions before the court and in making his submissions before
Mr. Justice Betton.

[3]        By any objective standard, the behaviour was extreme
and clearly contemptuous.  Despite warnings that he was treading on thin
ice, Mr. McDowell continued to press his points when his position should
have been to object, state his objection, accept the authority of the court,
and move on, saving his concerns for the appeal court, if that’s what he
chooses to do.

[4]        Rather than do that, he treated the jury in this matter
to a defiant spectacle, where it was clear he refused the authority of the
court and had no concern at all for the appearance of the administration of
justice.

[5]        As I say, I accept that he did not estimate the degree
of harm that he was causing, but it is my duty to impose a sanction that not
only punishes Mr. McDowell for what he did, but that is sufficient to
recognize the seriousness of that behaviour so that it deters others.

[6]        Having carefully considered what I have been advised
and the submissions of the Crown, I sentence Mr. McDowell to 10 days
in jail upon each of the two citations for contempt.

[7]        The
time will be served concurrently, so that the total is 10 days.

vi.        R. v. Asselin

[58]      In
this case, the trial judge described the aggravating factors as including the
fact that the trial was for a “grave personal violence offence” and the
appellant’s “brazen comments and attitude to prosecutors” (at
para 26).  He noted that the appellant effectively “dared” (ibid)
the prosecutors to have him arrested.  On the other hand, he recognised
that the offence was committed out of foolish disregard for the appellant’s
legal and moral duty as opposed to loyalty to a gang or an individual (see para
27).  In mitigation, he considered the appellant’s personal history,
finding him to be a contributing member of the community.  He stated that
he was not considering the appellant’s previous criminal record as a
factor.  He also did not consider the potential impact of the appellant’s
refusal to testify as he did not have evidence regarding that issue.

[59]      In light of
all of the above, the trial judge did not err in principle or law and the
sentence of nine months’ incarceration is not unfit.

vii.      R. c. Marion

viii.      R. v.
Dhillon

[26]      Punishment for criminal contempt is the “sole device by
which [a] court can ensure its own continued effectiveness in the struggle to
preserve the rule of law”: R. v. Bridges et al. (No. 2) (1989), 1989 CanLII 5321 (BC SC), 61 D.L.R. (4th) 154 (B.C.C.A.)
at 156, cited with approval in MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.
v. Brown, No. 1994 CanLII 3254 (BC CA), 92
B.C.L.R. (2d) 1 (C.A.) at para. 6.

[27]      A conviction for this offence is a serious matter,
irrespective of the context in which it arises. Criminal contempt requires
proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender publicly defied or disobeyed
a court order, with intent, knowledge or recklessness as to the fact that the
defiance would tend to depreciate the authority of the court: United Nurses of
Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), 1992 CanLII 99 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901 at 931–933; MacMillan
Bloedel at para. 46.

[28]      Denunciation
and deterrence, both general and specific, attract heightened significance in
these cases. As a result, a custodial sentence is not anomalous, even for
contemnors with no prior criminal history. See Texada Land Corp. v.
Shebib et al, 2002 BCCA 114 at
para. 12; Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC v. Mivasair, 2019 BCCA 156 at paras. 51–52, 57, 59.

VI.      DECISION

In imposing a sentence
for criminal contempt the sentencing judge may properly take into consideration
the extent of the wilful and deliberate defiance of the Court’s order, the
seriousness of the consequences of the appellant’s contemptuous behaviour, the
necessity of effectively terminating the appellant’s defiance as required by
the public interest as well as the importance of deterring such conduct in the
future.  Given these standards or criteria, an appellate court should
respect the discretion of the sentencing judge unless error is demonstrated in
balancing the various considerations.  We find no such error in this case.

[254]   The test identified in the appellate case law
is that a criminal contempt of court sanction is appropriate when an activity
constitutes a “clear and present danger”, “real and imminent
harm or threat to justice”. OPCA gurus sell and promote techniques
that damage the court. The judiciary regularly encounters litigants who attempt
to apply these techniques. Only a small fraction of those events are documented
in reported case law. This is not merely a theoretical issue, but one that is a
regular and unwelcome event.

[255]   Thus, though what Mr. Fearn says likely would
be preposterous, absurd, and probably offensive to the average Canadian, he is
one of a community of like-minded persons. In their eyes Mr. Fearn’s
“truths” are very real. To permit the business of interfering with
court processes to go unchallenged only reinforces this community’s misguided,
dystopian world perspective.

…..

[260]   Contempt of
court is a mechanism to curb OPCA misconduct that is directed to and interferes
with court operation and function. This response should be broad and
meaningful. That reflects this authority as an expression of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court. That means that while freedom of expression is a
value respected and protected both under the common law and the Charter,
that right does not extend to speech and communication which is criminal, or is
intended to or injures the administration of justice and the rights of justice
system participants.

Sentence
Imposed

[17]      In
Canadian criminal law, the concept of the ‘interests of justice’ has come to be
understood as encompassing the interests of the accused, the interests of the
Crown, broad-based societal concerns and the integrity of the criminal
process”: R. v. Cowan, 2021 SCC 45 at para. 63. In R.
v. Abbey, 2013 ONCA 206 at para. 29, Watt J.A. described the phrase
“interests of justice” as a “legal chameleon that takes its meaning from its
surroundings.” The phrase “signals the existence of a judicial discretion to be
exercised on a case-by-case basis”: R. v. Bernardo (1997), 1997 CanLII 2240 (ON CA), 121
C.C.C. (3d) 123 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 16.

_____________________________

The
Honourable Judge D. Patterson