Donald Martin Appellant v. Workers! Compensation Board of Nova Scotia and Attorney General of Nova Scotia Respondents and Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups, Canadian Labour Congress, Attomey General of Ontario, ‘Attomey General of British Columbia and Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta Interveners and between Ruth A. Laseur Appellant v. Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia and ‘Attomey General of Nova Scotia Respondents and Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tri Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups, Canadian Labour Congress, Attomey General of Ontario, Attomey General of British Columbia and, ‘Workers’ Compensation Board of All Interveners Indexed as: Nova Scotia (Workers' Gémpensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers’ ‘Compensation Board) v. Laseur File Nos.: 28372, 28370. 2002: December 9; 2003: October 3. Present: McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR NOVA SCOTIApain provisions did not demean the human dignity of the claimants and thus did not violate s 15(1) of the Charter. Held: The appeals should be allowed. Section 10B of the Act and the Regulations in their entirety infringe s. 15(1) of the Charter and the infringement is not justified under s. 1. The challenged provisions are of no force or effect by operation of s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The general declaration of invalidity is postponed for six months from the date of this judgment. In M's case, the decision rendered by the Appeals Tribunal is reinstated. L's case is retumed to the Board. ‘The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and, by virtue of s. $2(1) of the Constitution ‘Act, 1982, the question of constitutional validity inheres in every legislative enactment. From this principle of constitutional supremacy flows, as a practical corollary, the idea that Canadians should be entitled to assert the that the Constitution guarantees them in the ‘most accessible forum availabl To allow an administrative tribunal to decide Charter issues does not undermine the role of the courts as final arbiters of constitutionality in Canada, Administrative tribunal decisions based on the Charter are subject to judicial review on a correctness standard. In addition, the constitutional remedies available to administrative tribunals ate limited and do not include general declarations of invalidity. A determination by a tribunal that a provision of its enabling statute is invalid pursuant to the Charter is not binding on future decision-makers, within or outside the tribunal's administrative scheme. Only by obtaining a formal declaration of invalidity by a court can a litigant establish the general invalidity ofa legislative provision for all future cases. The Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Appeals Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Act and the Regulations. Administrative tribunals which have jurisdiction, explicit or implied, to decide questions of law arising under a legislative provision are presumed to have concomitant jurisdiction to decide the at the statute as a whole. Relevant factors will include the statutory mandate of the tribunal in issue and whether deciding questions of law is necessary to fulfilling this mandate effectively, the interaction of the tribunal in question with other elements of the administrative system; whether the tribunal is adjudicative in nature; and practical considerations, including the tribunal's capacity to consider questions of law. Practical clear implication from the statute itself. iby the tribunal, Such an implication should generally arise from the statute itself, Tather than from external considerations. To the extent that Cooper v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854, is inconsistent with this approach, it should no longer be relied upon. ‘The Appeals Tribunal could properly consider and decide the Charter issue raised in this case. The legislature expressly conferred on the Appeals Tribunal the authority to decide questions of 3SAD FAITH devil's dvoca Freedoms? 2 If the answer to question # 1 is yes, does such infringement constitute a reasonable limit prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? V. Analysis ‘A. Jurisdiction of the Appeals Tribunal to Apply the Charter 1. The Policy Adopted by this Court in the Trilogy 27 This Court has examined the jurisdiction of administrative tribunals to consider the constitutional validity of a provision of their enabling statute in Douglas College, supra, Cuddy Chicks, supra, and Tétreault-Gadoury, supra (together, the "trilogy"). On each occasion, the Court emphasized the strong reasons, of principle as well as policy, for allowing administrative tribunals to make such determinations and to refuse to apply a challenged provision found to violate the Constitution, including the administrative organs of the state. Obviously, it cannot be the case that every government official has to consider and decide for herself the constitutional validity of every Provision she is called upon to apply. If, however, she is endowed with the power to consider questions of law relating to a provision, that constitutional validity of that provision. and thus whether it ought to be interpreted and applied as such or disregarded. 29 From this principle of constitutional supremacy also flows, as a practical corollary, the idea that Canadians should be entitled to assert the righ freedoms that the Constitution sm in the most accessible forum available,| see Douglas College, supra, at pp. 603-604. In La Forest J's words, "there cannot be a Constitution for arbitrators and another for the courts" (Douglas College, supra, at p. 597) This accessibility concern is particularly pressing given that many administrative tribunals have exclusive initial jurisdiction over disputes relating to their enabling legislation, so that forcing litigants to refer Charter issues to the courts would result in costly and time-consuming (GRRBRERARERRENI A ¥ct-sclin J. Cs sn then vas) stated in her dissent in Cooper fae pea 1s[Sadly, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is just this: The Holy Sceptre which the Disenfranchised lare supposed to use to dismiss the court of law system by Petitioning, with relief of the adverse affec lof the rule of law, the Ministry of Justice of Canada. BIG LEY Many more tights determined by these tribunals than by the courts. If the Charter is to be meaningful to ordinary people, then it must find its expression in the decisions of these tribunals. [ccording to the statutory power of authority for the supreme Similar views had {COUtt of british columbia, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443, the superior 929. lcourts HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER CHARTER REMEDY! 30. Second, Charter disputes do not take place in a vacuum. ‘They require a thorough understanding of the objectives of the legislative scheme being challenged, as well as of the practical constraints it faces and the consequences of proposed constitutional remedies. This need is heightened when, as is often the case, it becomes necessary to determine whether a prima facie violation of a Charter right is justified under s. 1. In this respect, the factual findings and record compiled by an administrative tribunal, as well as its informed and expert view of the various issues raised by a constitutional challenge, will often be invaluable to a reviewing court: see Douglas College, supra, at pp. 604-605. As La Forest J correctly observed in Cuddy Chicks, supra, at pp. 16-17: id that the process of Charter decision making is not confined to abstract jons on constituti ich arise in a particular story context, the ability of the decision maker to analyze competing policy concerns is ability to compile a cogent record, is also of invaluable 31 Third, administrative tribunal decisions based on the Charter are subject to judi ‘on a correctness standard: see Cuddy Chicks, supra, at p. 17. An error of law by an administrative tribunal interpreting the Constitution can always be reviewed fully by a superior court. In addition, the constitutional remedies available to administrative tribunals are limited and do not include general declarations of invalidity. A determination by a tribunal that a provision of its enabling statute is invalid pursuant to the Charter is not binding on future decision makers, within or outside the tribunal's administrative scheme. 32 In Douglas College, supra, La Forest J. expressly considered and rejected several general arguments made against recognizing that administrative tribunals that have jurisdiction to decide questions of law possess a concomitant jurisdiction to apply the Charter. He noted that some authors had pointed to practical concerns with respect to the desirability of such adjudication, such as the lack of legal expertise of some administrative tribunals, the differences between their rules of procedure and evidence and those followed by courts, and the need to maintain the accessibility and timeliness of their procedures. Nevertheless, La Forest J. concluded, at p. 603, that these considerations, "though not without weight, should [not] dissuade this Court from adopting what has now become the clearly dominant view in the courts of this country". Nor, in my view, should such practical considerations surreptitiously find their way back into the courts’ analysis of a particular tribunal's jurisdiction despite a clear expression of legislative intent to 16 & 0016Therefore, giving immediate effect to ity of these provisions could result in prej ajured workers affected by chronic pain, as the Board would then have no specific policies or provisions to rely cn in such cases. While some default or residuary provisions of the Act and of the regulations as well as policies of the Board might apply, the results would likely be inconsistent, given the considerable discretion which would be left to the Board in chronic pain cases, The default rules might even prevent certain chronic pain sufferers from receiving any benefits, as was the case for Ms. Lascur. Allowing the challenged provisions to remain in force for a limited period of time would preserve the limited benefits of the current program until an appropriate legislative response to chronic pain can be implemented. Therefore, as the appellants requested, it is reasonable to postpone the general declaration of invalidity for six months from the date of this judgment: see Schachter, supra. 120 This postponement, of course, does not affect the appellants’ cases. Mr. Martin is clearly entitled to the benefits he has been claiming. as the challenged provisions stood as the only obstacle to his claims. 1 would thus reinstate the judgment rendered by the Appeals Tribunal in the Martin case on January 31, 2000. 121 The Appeals Tribunal, however, refused to grant permanent impairment benefits to Ms. Lascur because she did not challenge the constitutionality of the applicable guidelines, which attributed a permanent impairment rating of 0% to her injuries. In my view, it is appropriate to return Ms. Laseur’s case to the Board for reconsideration on the basis of the subsisting provisions of the Act and the applicable regulations and policies. I note that, if Ms. Laseur elects to raise the constitutionality of the permanent impairment guidelines, the Board will be obliged to consider and decide the issue in accordance with the present reasons. 122 I would answer the constitutional questions as follows: 1 Doss. 10B of the Workers! Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10, as amended, and the Functional Restoration (Multi-Faceted Pain Services) Program Regulations, N.S. Reg. 57/96 infringe the equality rights guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Yes. 2 If the answer to questa 1 is yes, does such infringement constitute a reasonable limit prescribed by law and demonst justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to s. 1 of ‘the Cogatian! Chatter of Fights and Pret DENIAL of Everyone's God Given LEGAL Rights applies to THE FREE Society of Equals and The [Supremacy of God which is the sole appropriate nd JUST standard! Everything else is fiction lused TO DENY The Truth/The Holy Spirit. Workers' Compensation Act, $.N.S. 1994-95, ¢. No. ANNEX: RELEVANT LEGISLATION 10A In this Act, "chronic pain" means pain [5.24 (1) of The Charter presents both linfringement and DENIAL that nobody but me knows applies to all provisions lof all enactments and also the th mandates of all schemes/agencies |with DENIAL being the only legitimate Istandard for correctness!(2) [Repealed 2013-7-30.] (3) [Repealed 2013-7-30.] (4) [Repealed 2002-37-21.] (5) The Chief Justice [CHARTER Remedy for Charter violations within the Taw] the in i lpolicies or practices or regulations has PURPOSELY BEEN} fe one in which he Ge CLUDED from the supreme court of british columbia in laccordance with s. 24(1), of The Charter of Rights and Jurisdiction and sittings |Freedoms! 9 (1) The court continues to be a court of original jurisdiction and has jerefore, all] {jurisdiction in all cases, civil and criminal, arising in British Columbia. Renee court" | (2) The court may sit and act, at any time and at any place, for the pertaining to | transaction of any part of its business, civil or criminal, or for the Charter violating | discharge of any duty. jaw are actually | (2.1) without limiting subsection (2), and despite any rule of law or Mie eee enactment to the contrary, any criminal or civil matter that under any rule Bee eine’ | of law or enactment is to be or must be heard, or that an accused or a Ministry of party is entitled to have heard, by the court in one of the County of \justice asa__| Vancouver or the County of Westminster may be heard at any place within Isghost writer”. | the Vancouver Westminster Judicial District that the court appoints. [According fo the || (3) Subject to the direction of the Chief Justice, the court must sit in each co place where there is a registry of the court as often as is necessary for the Iconstitutional _| feasonable dispatch of civil trials and other business. [questions act, no | (4) The registrar must prepare a calendar of the dates when the court rule is inhered | proposes to sit in any place to be published in the registry located there. lwith Charter lcompliance and ation lmost cases are ldealt with as Icheaply as lpossible by the luse of the LSB in | (2) A chief administrator of court services, an administrator of court lcases where they| services for each registry and other persons necessary to carry out this Act lare and the duties assigned to a registry may be appointed under the Public INAPPLICABLE -| Service Act. notice that i Pac ecet la (3) Subject to the direction of the Attorney General, and to the direction of ldisappears at the | the Chief Justice in matters of judicial administration and the use of court litle of s. 9 of the | room facilities, the chief administrator of court services must direct and [constitutional supervise registries and administrative services for the court. lquestions act! (4) The chief administrator of court services, for the purposes of carrying ‘out his or her duties under this Act, may disclose to the Chief Justice\GLSBCSDMail@govbe.ca> Spree ne [the court, here, is The Civil Defence] Your emails of March 4, 16, 22 and 26,2012 \Branch of The Ministry of Justice| Emst Krass Iwhich can only accede neutrally to all Email: unapre8d@telus.net Your eae dated Mach 162 and 28, 2012, acrossedo Attorne eral, have been. jarded to me for response. Government of British Columbia. It would not be appropriaté Attorney General to comment on a matter that is present Please send any further communications regarding this matter to Leah Greathead, a lawyer in the Legal Services Branch who has conduct of this matter for the Province. She can be reached at the following address: Leah Greathead [This email constitutes “a letter of consent” due to] Barrister and Solicitor INO LO CONTENDO, where the evidence of BAD] Ministry of Attorney General FAITH/mala fides was/is so overwhelmingly| Legal Services Branch lagainst attempting to defend the indefensible, PO Box 9280 Stn Prov Govt lafter 3 weeks, the Confederation of Canada had| Ino choice but to declare the matter over and in| favour of me. lOn March 28, 2013, | accessed a provided web] lpage put up by The Civil Defence Branch of The| IMinistry of Justice on behalf of The Minister of [Finance that established that my April 2042! ICHARTER Relief was granted/acceded to based| lupon the cut and dried nature of the Full [Disclosure evidence and was to be payable! distributable upon my request after March 5, Victoria BC _V8W 9/7 Sincerely, Richard J. M. Fyfe, Q.C. Assistant Deputy Attorney General pe: The Honourable Christy Clark Leah GreatheadMinistry of Justice (British Columbia) Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General (ADAG) - Legal Services Branch The office of the ADAG provides leadership, management and direction to staff in the Legal Services Branch. The Legal Services Branch, under the authority of the Attorney General Act, is charged with the provision of legal services to cabinet, all ministries of the Government of British ‘Columbia and numerous government agencies. The ADAG reports to the deputy attorney general, is a member of the ministry executive and is accountable for all legal services provided to the Government of British Columbia, These include civil matters (both legal advice and legal opinions), the negotiation and drafting of agreements, the representation of the Government of British Columbia before courts and tribunals and the drafting of legislation and regulations. Lawyers in the ADAG’ office prepare opinions on constitutional and administrative law matters and provide advice, generally, to the Premier, the Premier’s office, cabinet, cabinet operations and other government ministries and agencies. They also assist the ADAG with strategic planning and special projects and generally assist the ADAG in meeting the responsibilities of that role. Articling students participating in a rotation in the ADAG’s office will assist with these functions. They may be involved in research and writing on a variety of legal and policy issues and may participate in meetings in relation to the functions of the ADAG’s office and its lawyers. Students participating in this rotation should expect to carry a diverse workload, must be prepared to manage their time and workload and should approach the rotation with the flexibility to assist with a wide range of duties. copy of the web page: http://www.ag.gov.be.ca/articling- /divisions/adag/index.htm‘The attached April 10, 2012 communiqué establishes that my April 2, 2012 Constitutional Remedy was acceded to because it was CERTIFIED by The Principles of Fundamental Justice and Full Disclosure evidence. ‘The Queen has to uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms especially s. 7 and Enforcement = s. 24 — of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So, a FIAT was issued and continues to be sued, fulfilled and placed in to a holding account, allegedly, once the money is removed from the “consolidated (Constitutional and Charter) revenue (Remedy or Relief) fund, CRF.” However, my April 2012 Constitutional Remedy has yet to be delivered because The Federal Government of Canada through its Minister of Finance SPOKE and allowed a kill or be killed scenario be put in place ‘where The Ministry of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia was WRONGLY allowed to speak and try and force a matter CERTIFIED by s. 7 and Enforcement — s. 24 — of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be taken to a court of law that has ZERO jurisdiction over Constitutional and Charter Remedy since it relates to Everyone's Habeas Corpus. As proven, every action against me has been UNETHICAL, IMMORAL, CRIMINAL and contemptuous not only of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but, most importantly, The Almighty! 1 did not understand that what was going on in my matters went beyond me and related to the disrespect that The Federal Government has towards The Almighty and Jesus Christ and the fact that The Holy Trinity gave us The Right to Life that is NOT respected in your civilization just as it was across all civilizations. Basically, everything that was done WRONG against The Self Evident Truth was due to the existence of ‘The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — s. 7 and s. 24 — along with the 14" Amendment and I Amendment of the US Constitution and s. 3 of The International Bill of Rights which is the world’s administrative OUT where the future of mankind is placed upon God's Elect who suffered injury to his person due to the DEFICIENCIES of medicine and can prove that medicine has been subjugated to the current system and NOT scientific logic due to all this hidden Truth. Everything became an all or nothing reality where my Constitutional Remedy was being withheld due to my having to prove the existence of the out for the civilizations for all time! It should be patently obvious that I am God's Elect sent with infinite love and justice behind me because not only did I fulfill the administrations’ standards for this declaration but deceased Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty was sent to hell for refusing to perform his Oath of Office in this matter and deliver direct to ‘me my Constitutional and Charter Remedies that have been removed continuously from the CRF! Thave an indomitable Spirit just like my dad had which resulted in his being killed off through the operation of the NO CODE provincial medical policy/regulation while I was forced to watch this corruption happen and, then, the Administration of The Province of British Columbia moved against my Right to Life and Security of Person where those NOT called and chosen and FAITHFUL were used against me in the OF NO FORCE AND OF NO EFFECT “estate of Rudi Heinz Krass” when I naturally inherited everything the moment that my beloved dad passed from this earth to return to Heaven. According to Luke 18:7-8, itis clear that the kill or be killed scenario was applied following the February 2015 British Columbia OF NO FORCE court actions happened as Jim Flaherty was dead less than 2 months later as a WARNING to those opposing the Self Evident Truth and The Principles of Fundamental Justice. I cannot live on this planet with those NOT called and chosen and FAITHFUL WRONGL being able to call themselves “family” of me and my dad when that is a LIE!YAHOO! NEWS Signin with Facebook ft ent Nm Fd ps ef ewig Myo det ar Fue wot you an ot thet page and ble aga with Fesbook ‘a Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control. {mn Fis Bank of Canada to buy back up to C$500 million of bonds ©) REUTERS. Reters-s0 hours ago ‘TORONTO (Reuters) - The Bank of Canada said on Tuesday it may buy back up to $500 million ($498.7 million) from as ‘many as eight government bond issues in a cash management bond repurchase operation on For more details, please see: tp / www: bankofeanidaca/ /stats/Cars/re5uNts ‘bd_regrepem_10269_feft_20120417_111500.htm! ($1=$1.00 Canadian) (Reporting By Jon Cook) (Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012 Check for restrictions a: htp/about.reuters.com fullega asp ‘Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! Canada Co. AI Rights Reserved. | Yahoo! News Network | / [This is the Legacy Bond Fund set up to cover llosses from Applications for CHARTER| [Remedies beyond jurisprudence —_where| lcommon English exists! From the attachment, the Administrators of Canada are fully aware that there is a mountainous underfunded liability that has gone| unfulfilled as Canada retumed to its Victorian- lera standards of ruling false gods who rule with] DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE| lwhile waiting for The One meant to overthrow the established system based upon mammon| that the administration new was coming. [I know this to be true because my informal March 2012 constitutional remedy was EXACTLY $500 million.As alll the produced Full Disclosure evidence establishes that all administratively imposed actions since September 2011 in my case arose from the erasing of all ethical, criminal, moral, and Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ bounds put in place to prohibit this administrative conduct, it i, therefore, patently obvious that all the actions from The Coven of Jezebel towards me have not only been without merit but also UNETHICAL, CRIMINAL, IMMORAL AND CHARTER VIOLATING! ‘The reason for this level of hatred and evil is because the administration knew that it could not win at all and that, for me to gain the authority from ON HIGH (My Rank comes from The Almighty and Jesus Christ), Ihad to take control of the entire money supply with the full intention of reversing the corruption that is mamona — the personification of the pursuit of wealth as the SOLE object of worship where The Almighty is dismissed and NOT recognized by the civilization’s rulers who only rule through the letter of | the law, thus, allowing them to impose the pursuit of wealth which, then, demands that The Almighty send His Comforter/Helper to reestablish the pursuit of THE FREE Society of Equals without classes and indivisible from pole to pole. So, the only way that I could receive my Charter Remedies was to complete and file with The Queen in Council and The President of the United States the Notice of Writ of Everyone's Habeas Corpus and the Notice of Application of Everyone's Habeas Corpus which Ihave done since January 15, 2016. Thave also supplied the Notice of Application of Petition of Right and Applying It as of March 15, 2016 which will help for others running in to significant opposition to their entitlements. ‘You have all the evidence at your I to see that I am RIGHT and The Comforter/Helper because complete and utter hatred by all others dictates that the one being opposed is having this done because those organizing the opposition to the person are doing so as they hate The Almighty and His Self Evident Truth: The World’s Hatred “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you."*If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. *Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. * But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. * If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. ® He who hates Me hates My Father also, * If Thad not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. * But this happened that the word ‘might be fulfiled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’ The Coming Rejection %“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.[This is a contract for my April 2012 CHARTER Remedies signed off on by The] |Minister of Finance that is meant to be honoured after March 5, 2013 which is NOW! [Granted Apri 2072] CHARTER Remedy| [The well hidden $63* billion] lin CHARTER Remedy made] lknown to me as a King's} manana mae (Clearly, the Administration KNEW FULL WELL what it has been doing for ldecades is corrupt and will get caught. [This Fund though is meant for Canada's Charter Monarch in order to] liberate THE FREE Society of Equals because this economic illusion] Imade real was based upon the attempted genocide of those accepting] land abiding by Canada's Charter established INALIENABLE RIGHTS and| The Holy Spirit/pure fact Truth/simpliciter defining all thought once The| [Truth was discovered. jankfully, | asked for a naturally legitimately] large amount which is accounted for in the| lbreakdown of my April 2012 CHARTER| IRelief or else my case would have never lbeen dealt with in this manner!Your emails of April 5 & 6, 2013 Emest John Krass Email: ejk-soh@hotmail.com Dear Mr. Krass: Did this and the start of lattachments - the April 16, l2013 no jurisdiction emaill/ response - was generated! ejk-soh@hotmail.com SBCSDMail@gov.be.ca> "OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX" rass Incoming Email and Attachments- April S.pdf; Krass Incoming Email - April 6.pdf INOT A CHARTER IREMEDY, THOUGH! ese] In your April 5, 2013 email, you make reference to your “April 4, 2012 Constitutional Remedy”. Constitutional remedies can only be granted by a court. To tHe knowledge, no such remedy has been granted in court proceedings in and again to the best of my knowledge, no promissory Kote has been si resulting in a debt of the Province of Bi otherwise. Thank you for writing. Sincerely, Geoff Moyse Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General pc: The Honourable Christy Clark The Honourable Robert Nicholson dy, please providg it to me. Further, ation to such Nurported remedy or [proper reading is (court of law) Jproceedings" and there is far more justice than that of the court of law system because of s. 29| lof the neutral citation 2003 SCC 54 where the lrollowing is found: |29 From this principle of (Charter supremacy) constitutional supremacy also flows, as a practical ‘orollary, the idea that Canadians should bel lentitied to assert the rights and freedoms that the (Charter) Constitution guarantees them in the most laccessible forum available, without the need for| |parallel proceedings before the courts: see Douglas |College, supra, at pp. 603-604. [but was also created in 1996! INOBODY has to argue for a CHARTER Remedy based upon DENIAL of a right lbecause a right is defined in common English so, A Right is A Right is A Righ Inor does anyone have to attempt to argue A Right before a court of law judge| lwho is owned by the enacted rules of law and NOT Canada's Charter of Rights} land Freedoms - see s. 9(1) of the supreme court of british columbia, R.S.B.C., ¢. |443, as well as the 1996 Constitution Act of British Columbia that should not existejk-soh@hotmail.com "AG LSB CSD Mail AG:EX" Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:18 AM "OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX" ; "Hammond, James FIN:EX" <; Attach: — Krass Incoming Email and Attachments- April 12,pdf Subject: Youremail of April 11, 2013, Emst John Krass Email: ejk-soh@hotmail.com Dear Mr. Krass: Your email dated April 11, 2013, addressed to the Minister of Justice and Attomey General, has been forwarded to me for response on her behalf. | note your reference to my recent email of April 10, 2013. The judicial decision to which you refer in your email (Martin v Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Board 2003 SCC 54) does not stand for the proposition that constitutional remedies can be granted by the Premier or the Executive (Cabinet Ministers). The reference in that decision is to formal legal proceedings before an administrative tribunal, such as the Workers Compensation Board in that case, or another person when exercising a statutory power of decision, such as the labour arbitrator in the Douglas College case. Those tribunals or persons, when acting in that capacity, constitute a “court of competent jurisdiction” as that term is used in section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. lie. they and the Confederation of Canada] Ihave no jurisdiction over CHARTER| Remedy and have no right to speak in such Imatters. hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Geoff Moyse Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General pe: The Honourable Christy Clark The Right Honourable David Johnston [Canada’s Governor General James W. Hammond [Member of the Civil Defence Branch of The Ministry of Justice [The provincial government dismissed themselves and the court of law system because the] court of competent jurisdiction (the disenfranchised) has exclusive jurisdiction over CHARTER| Remedy. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms Court, which uses unabridged common English| rather than be owned by the enacted legislation, as applies to all court of law systems, applied| Ithe fact that Rudi Heinz Krass and | were DENIED our Legal Right to life and security of person| land, as such, | have the right fo be liberated from the adverse affects of the law, regulations, lschemes and law makers which | have addressed in my accepted Apri! 2012 Constitutional Remedy that became fully payable upon request by me after March 5, 2013: | have done this| lwhich resulted in both Geoff Moyse's responses that establish the FULLY Privative Court's [April 2012 response as relating to my CHARTER Remedy.For Release: 15:30 E.T. Publication : 15 h 30 HE [This is my REAL CHARTER Remedy as| lis out of sync with the Bond schedule. OTTAWA | rd The following cash management bond repurchase operation will be conducted by the Bank of Canada on behalf of the Government of Canada, subject to the "Standard Terms for Repurchase Operations of Government of Canada Marketable Bonds’. Appel de soumissions de fopération de rachat obligations aux fins de la gestion dela trésorerie La Banque du Canada procédera, au nom du gouvernement fédéral, Yopération de rachat obligations aux fins de la ‘gestion de la trésorere suivante. Les soumissions devront étre présentées conformément au «Réglement relatf aux opéraions de rachat obligations négociables du gouvernement du Canadan. tet [These match my Avetion Date @UTAWUSIE) Date «adjudication : Offering Deadiine 11:15:00 Heure limite de soumission [Promissory Note. ‘Maximum Total Repurchase Montant total maximuyh du rachat Multiple Yield / Taux multiples Coupon Outstanding | ed Interest Period Rate. Prior to Auction (Rate per $1000) ‘Settlement Maturity Taux du Encours avant riode des intéréts courus, Riglenicot’ Echtince “colon Fadidlication’ ‘Claux par 1 0008) 2014.05.15 2014.06.01 3.000 $6,609,728,000 CAISSOSTYSTD 2013.12.01 - 2014.05.15 (1356164384) 2014.05.15 2014.06.01 5.000 $6,935,148,000 (@AISS087KSHO 2013.12.01 - 2014.05.15 (22.60273973) 2014.05.15 2014.08.01 2.250 $9,815,647,000 CA13S087ZR8S 2014.02.01 - 2014.08.15 (634931807) 2014.05.15 2014.12.01 2.000 $8,528,992,000 CA13S087YU24 2013.12.01 - 2014.08.15 ((9.04109889) 2014.05.15 2015.02.01 1.000 $14,014,986,000 CA138087ZXS3 2014.02.01 - 2014.08.15 (282191781) 2014.05.15 2015.06.01 2.500 $7,522,868,000 CA13S087ZC17 2013.12.01 - 2014.05.15 (11.30136986) 2014.05.15 2015.06.01 4.500 $9,501,628,000 CA13S087XX71 2013.12.01 - 2014.05.15 (2034246875) 2014.05.15 2015.06.01 11.250 _$381,505,000 CA138087TU88 2013.12.01 - 2014.08.15 (5085616438) 2014.05.15 2015.08.01 1.500 $15,300,000,000 CA135087A388 2014.02.01 - 2014.05.15 (4.23287671) * Amount outstanding net of bonds repurchased by the Minister of Finance Details of the "Calculation of the Clean Price of a Bond in a Cash Management Bond Repurchase Operation” are available ‘on the Bank of Canada web site * Encours en circulation net des obligations rachetées par le ministre des Finances Résultats au plus tard a: 11 h 25 HE, Les détails du «Caleul du prix sans intéréts courus d'une obligation dans une opération de rachat d'obligations aux fins de la gestion de la trésorerie» sont disponibles sur le site web de Ia[The Promissory Note for my April 2012 CHARTER Remedy is fulfilled! OTTAWA eee (On behalf ofthe Minister of Finance, it was announced today that tenders for the Repurchase Operation of Government of Canada Marketable Bonds have been accepted as follows: Opération de rachat d'obligations aux fins de la gestion de la ttésorerie Résultat de adjudication On vient d'annoncer aujourd'hui, au nom du ministre des Finances, que les soumissions suivantes ont été acceptées pour TTopération de rachat d'obligations négociables du gouvemement du Canada : Auction Date 2014.05.13 Date dadjudication Offering Deadline Total Amount Repurchased ‘Multiple Yield / Taux multiples % Coupon Amount Sar aed Cee Rate Repurchased Tauxde Ratio Operation Seftlement Maturity Taux du. Montant rendement Ratio de Encours aprés Réplement Echéance coupon durachat_ limite répartion ISIN Yopéation” 2140s 20149601 3.000 QERNRNED 360 100.0000 QUERIED sc.230.722000 2014053 20140601 5.000 GERRI 500 10000000 GEIR s6.7es.140000 2014.05.15 2014.08.01 2.250 so © CAI3S087ZRES $9,815,647,000 2014.08.15 2014.12.01 2.000 * © CA13S087YU24 $8,528,992,000 2014.05.15 2015.02.01 1.000 so © CAI3S087ZX53_$14,014,986,000 2014.05.15 2018.06.01 2.500 $200,000,000 981 57.25700 CAI3SO87ZCI7_$7,322,868,000 2014.05.15 2015.06.01 4.500 so © CA136087XX71$9,501,628,000 2014.05.15 2015.06.01 11.250 so © CA13S087TUSE —_$381,505,000 2014.05.15 2015.08.01 1.500 so © CA135087A388 _$15,300,000,000 * Amount outstanding net of bonds repurchased by the Minister. * Encours en circulation net des obligations rachetées par le of Finance ‘The next Cash Management Bond Repurchase Operation, will take place on 20 May 2014. ‘ministre des Finances La prochaine opération de rachat d'obligations aux fins de In gestion de la trésorerie aura lieu le 20 mai 2014.ejk-soh@hotmail.com ‘AG LSB CSD Mail AG:EX" ‘Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:02 PM *OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX" Emst Krass - Incoming Emails pdf; Emst Krass - Incoming Letters pdf Your letters of April 10, 2014 Emst John Krass Email: ejk-soh@hotmail.com Dear Mr. Krass: Your letters dated April 10, 2014, addressed to the Premier, and enclosures have been forwarded to this ministry for response. | am responding on behalf of the Premier and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. ‘As you have been repeatedly advised, neither the Ministry of Justice of British Columbia, nor the office of the Premier is a court of competent jurisdiction capable of granting relief under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No such remedy has been granted to you ye INO Court of Law has jurisdiction over CHARTER Remedy as per s. 9(1) of the |supreme court act of british columbia, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 443. in that regard for either the Attomey General and Minister of Justice or the ficial capacities or as Members of the Legislative Assembly, to distribute to ised that neither they nor their offices will be responding further to your requests in that regard, Sincerely, M . iolatron of This thtemert is a violate Kurt J. W. Sandstrom, Q.C. of Fudamsntad Turties) Assistant Deputy Attorney General o.t Caneiple = ee , cd AWGN Tha Comodious Clerker of pc: The Honourable Christy Clark gists 4 Frosdems' Christy Clark, MLA rag