And so we come to our latest specimen: R. v. King:http://canlii.ca/t/gfqnw
A chap by the name of Omar Shariff El Bey, referred to as "Eldey" by the judge, appeared in court to answer to the motor vehicle offence of running a red light. More specifically, he appeared as agent for "ex-relation Bruce King". Omar was not so much interested in proceeding with trial, but rather wanted to know what the court thought of his writs:
The JP was not impressed with this tomfoolery and had Omar escorted from the court:[2] The appellant was charged with failing to stop for a red light contrary to s. 144(18.1) of the Highway Traffic Act. On the trial date before His Worship Justice of the Peace S. Dudani, an individual who identified himself as Omar Shariff Eldey (sic) appeared and claimed he was representing “ex-relation Bruce King.” When asked what the plea was, Mr. Eldey indicated that there was no plea and that he was looking for an answer to a number of writs he had filed before the court. There were documents styled “writs” filed with the court that ran a number of pages. When His Worship made further inquiries, Mr. Eldey stated that he did not know the appellant who was a “corporate construct” that did not exist, that his authority to represent the appellant was put on him, and that he was not defending anyone but looking for an answer to his writs.
At that point, "the appellant" was paged by name, though it's not clear whether it was Omar or Bruce. When no one showed, the court proceeded without the defendant, who was subsequently convicted and fined $260.Mr. Eldey then asked the court for his authority. His Worship, understandably frustrated at this point, stated he was not going to get into a dialogue on this issue and ruled that Mr. Eldey had no legal authority to represent the appellant. When Mr. Eldey objected and stated he had some information on the appellant, His Worship asked the court officer to escort Mr. Eldey out of the courtroom on the basis he had no legal authority to be in court for the appellant. This whole exchange was relatively brief. I cannot comment on the tone of what took place.
And now comes the soft touch:
The court felt bad for Mr. King. I mean, someone did appear even if it was a Moorish weirdo who was not qualified to act as agent. Out of fairness to Bruce, the court found he should have another shot at a trial:[4] With the greatest of respect to His Worship, he erred in conducting the proceeding in this fashion and the appellant was denied procedural fairness.
The court, referring to Meads v. Meads warned that it would not tolerate vexatious litigants. Now, it occurred to me, as it did to the court, that Bruce King and Omar may be the same person:[7] That said it was wrong to simply treat the case as if the appellant failed to appear for his trial and was deemed to not wish to dispute the charge after having been issued a notice of the time and place for trial. Essentially, the appellant did wish to dispute the charge and attempted to appear through his agent but that agent was disqualified by the court from acting. In such circumstances, fairness dictates that the trial be adjourned so that the appellant could attend personally or through another agent: see R. v. Sidhu, [2002] O.J. No. 2192 (C.J.). The Justice of the Peace should have treated the matter no differently from a case where a defendant sent an unknowledgeable and ill-instructed family member as an agent. The appellant should not suffer the consequences of any ill-advised conduct of the agent that resulted in the agent’s disqualification.
[8] Unfortunately, the representations made by Mr. Eldey seemed to have influenced the court in treating the matter in a summary fashion. The appellant is entitled to his proverbial day in court. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and a new trial is ordered.
So, in the end, a new trial was ordered. It remains to be seen whether Bruce takes advantage of this opportunity, or whether he decides to stay on the OPCA bandwagon. I'm not holding my breath.[11] Finally, I would like to add that my decision is based upon the record of proceeding as it existed of the date of this trial, which was the first trial date for the appellant. It may be that on a future trial date, if the same situation arises, things can be treated differently. For example, it is not entirely clear to me whether Mr. Eldey was acting as an agent for the appellant like the Justice of Peace treated him to be. Given some of the representations made by Mr. Eldey and the materials filed in court, Mr. Eldey may well have been the appellant himself. He was simply insisting, for whatever motivation or reason, on being called something other than Bruce King. On the re-trial this can be clarified by determining whether the person who answers to the case on the docket is the person who received the material Certificate of Offence in the name of Bruce King, regardless of the nomenclature used by that person in court. If so, the court will have jurisdiction to proceed with the case.
