IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF ONTARIO
(EAST REGION)
BETWEEN:
JEAN-SERGE BRISSON
Appellant
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Notice of Constitutional Challenge
Michael Swinwood
Barrister & Solicitor
346 Waverley Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0W5
Fax: (613) 563-9179
TO: Crown Attorneys Office
L’Orignal, Ontario
AND TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Constitutional Law division
7th Floor, 720 Bay St.
Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1
Fax: (416) 326-4015
AND TO: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
284 Wellington St.
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0P4
Fax: (613) 954-1920
- 1 -
In the Provincial Court of Ontario
(East Region)
Between:
Jean Serge Brisson Appellant
- and -
Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
Notice of Constitutional Question
Take notice that in the within Notice of Appeal (attached), the appellant raises a constitutional challenge, in his appeal, at a date to be set by the court clerk at L’Orignal, Ontario to have declared null and void Section 53 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, Charter H8., as being ultra vires the legislature of Ontario and have declared unconstitutional and of no force and effect as against the Appellant.
- 2 -
The Grounds for the Application are:
1. That the legislation, Highway Traffic Act of Ontario, is void ab initio, owing to her Majesty the Queen and the provincial government of Ontario being complicit in the crime of genocide as against the First Nations people, thereby depriving Her majesty the Queen and the provincial government of Ontario, the proper legislative authority to enact the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.
2. That the Ontario government lacks proper legislative authority in Ontario, East Region, specifically the township of Russell, in that this territory is unceded Algonquin First Nations territory and the establishment of law courts and enforcement officers in this territory is directly contrary to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms rendering the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario void as against the Appellant.
3. That the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario, by virtue of containing provisions which render operating a vehicle, a privilege, directly offends an individual right of a person for free access to roadways in the province of Ontario set out in the common law, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, thereby rendering these types of provisions contained in the Highway Traffic Act unconstitutional.
4. That a Justice of the Peace of Ontario, in adjudicating on matters pursuant to the Provincial Offences Act is not an independent impartial tribunal as contemplated by S.2 (f) of the Canadian Bill of Rights and S11 (d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, thereby rendering the conviction null and void.
- 3 -
5. That the Justice of the Peace in this case assumed a prosecutorial stance in the matter, thereby offending 5.2 (f) of the Canadian Bill of Rights and S 11 (d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, rendering the conviction null and void.
6. That the impugned section 53 of the Highway Traffic Act offends principles enunciated in the Magna Carta, Canadian Bill of Rights, Charter of Rights and Freedoms and common law rights of mobility and free passage on roadways so as to render it unconstitutional and of no force and effect.
7. That the punishment section of section 53 of the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario are onerous and out of proportion to the offence alleged, thereby offending the Canadian Bill of Rights and Charter of Rights as to cruel and unusual punishment, thereby being null and void as against the Appellant.
The Constitutional Principles to be argued are:
1. The legislature of Ontario and Her Majesty the Queen, deprive themselves of legislative authority, by being complicit in the crime of genocide, contrary to their international treaty obligations codified in the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.
2. By virtue of the relationship between Her Majesty the Queen and the legislature of Ontario, with the Algonquin First Nations people in this territory, there has been an unconstitutional assumption of court jurisdiction by provincial and federal courts, established in unceded Algonquin First Nations territory, and thereby amount to "Misprision of Treason and Fraud", within the meaning of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 encoded in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and amounts to "complicity in Genocide", contrary to the Convention of Genocide.
- 4 -
3. Rights of free passage on the roadways in this region and territory, which have been improperly eroded and ignored in establishing driving on these roadways as a privilege, which is in direct conflict with rights enunciated since the Magna Carta 1215, Canadian Bill of Rights S5(1) Part II, Charter of Rights and Freedoms S 6 (2) (b) and common law rights of free passage enunciated in prior jurisprudence in Ontario and other provinces in Canada.
4. That deprivation of liberty of an individual must be decided by an independent and impartial tribunal, as enunciated in the Canadian Bill of Rights S2(f) and Sections 7 and 11 (d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not by an employee of the Province of Ontario, given certain administrative duties, which have escalated to adjudication of matters involving the liberty of the individual.
5. That the conduct of the hearing in the present case amounts to the Justice of the Peace offending the above enunciated rights involving impartiality and independence, by pursuing questions of the Appellant not in the purview of the adjudicator, but more suited to the prosecutor, thereby offending the said sections of the Canadian Bill of Rights and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
6. That the Appellant enjoys Charter Rights of mobility enunciated in S6 (2) (b) and free passage, as enunciated in the common law and jurisprudence, which cannot be abrogated or infringed by an act of the legislature of Ontario.
-5 -
7. The principles of cruel and unusual punishment set out in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which are offended by Section 53 of the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.
Statutory Provisions or Rules upon which the Appellant relies:
1. Magna Carta 1215
2. Statute of Frauds 1670
3. Royal Proclamation 1763
4. Convention for the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, 1948
5. Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960 c44
6. Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982
7. The Constitution Act, 1982 - S52(1)
8. Such additional statutes or enactments as the Appellant may advise and the Honourable Court permit.
In Support of this Application, the Appellant relies upon:
1. The transcripts of proceedings and exhibits.
2. Brief in Supreme Court of Canada, by Bruce Clark, L.L.B., M.A., PH.D, dated October 4, 1996
3. Law Society of Upper Canada v Bruce Clark, 1997.
- 6 -
The Relief Sought is:
1. An order declaring S53 of the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario as null and void against the Appellant and unconstitutional and quashing the convictions against the Appellant pursuant to Section 53 of the Highway Traffic Act.
Appellant may be served with documents pertinent to this application:
1. By service in accordance with Rule 5 to:
Michael Swinwood
Barrister & Solicitor
346 Waverley St.
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0W5
Tel: (613) 563-7474
Fax: (613) 5639179
Dated at Ottawa this 16th day of November, 2000
_________________
Michael Swinwood
TO: Crown Attorney’s Office
16 Court St. P.O. Box 299
L’Orignal, Ontario
K0B 1K0
Tel: (613) 675-6440
Fax: (613) 675-1632
AND TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Constitutional Law division
7th Floor 720 Bay St.
Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1
Fax: (416) 326-4015
AND TO: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
284 Wellington St.
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0P4
Fax: (613) 954-1920
To read the background details about Jean-Serge: Brisson's Appeal click here ...