The Aquatic Dominion of Canada

[Burnaby49]

A new twist in Canadian tax appeals. The appellant claims she is not a resident of Canada because Canada is not under water.

The appellant brings out all the protester boilerplate that the court is good and sick of hearing (link below). The usual natural person claim and the new (at least as far as I'm aware in Canadian Tax Court appeals) point that since the definition of Canada includes our territorial waters it must, by the usual strained logic, exclude the actual dry land she lives on. She is also fighting for her freedom from slavery, an issue she feels she has to address in Tax Court since we don't have a Thirteenth Ammendment. The list of failed "natural person" appeals cited by the court is pretty impressive but, being a brave freedom fighter, she saw no reason to let this deter her from trying it again. To quote the heart of her defense:


Appellant's submissions
[11] First, the appellant says that she should not be liable under the Income Tax Act ("ITA") without her express consent. From the appellant's point of view, to suggest that under the ITA Parliament can compel a man or woman to pay tax without his or her explicit consent is prima facie evidence of slavery.

[12] The appellant also argues that a "natural person" is not a person within the meaning of the term "person" contained in the ITA and, consequently, a "natural person" is exempt from paying income tax.

[13] Moreover, the appellant's position is that she has no valid contractual obligation to the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") resulting from her application for a social insurance number ("SIN") and therefore has no "taxable income". In reaching this conclusion, the appellant relies particularly on the following reasons:

a) When the appellant made her application for a SIN, she was a minor and therefore unable to legally contract.

b) The appellant was wrongfully led to believe that she could not be employed without a SIN and was coerced into a contractual agreement with the CRA under threat, duress or intimidation consisting in the prospect of losing an employment opportunity.

c) The CRA changed the terms or details of that contract when it changed the eight digit number on the application to nine digits without the appellant's consent.

[14] Finally, the appellant denies that she was a resident of Canada for the 2009 taxation year since, in the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, "Canada" is defined as including "the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada". Using the legal maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, which means "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another", the appellant argues that she was not a resident of Canada in 2009 since she was not residing in or on water.



http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2012/2 ... cc142.html

[Kestrel]

[14] Finally, the appellant denies that she was a resident of Canada for the 2009 taxation year since, in the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, "Canada" is defined as including "the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada". Using the legal maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, which means "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another", the appellant argues that she was not a resident of Canada in 2009 since she was not residing in or on water.

Presumably the "internal waters of Canada" would include that portion of the water table that is underground.

Did she find a place to live where the ground beneath her is solid rock encased in watertight plastic all the way down to the earth's mantle?

[Imalawman]

This is a perfectly logical extension of CTC reasoning.

[.]

Think of what form it might take by the time it works its way around the world to say, Greece, or Italy.

Never mind, in Greece and Italy they take their obligation to evade taxes very seriously as an every-day matter. They don't need PH.

[Kestrel]

Using the legal maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, which means "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another"...

Notice how she cites this maxim as an authoritative principle of law. No interpretation needed.

So does this mean that if you're charged with a crime, and the counts have "lesser included charges," that you're not really charged with the big stuff?

[The Observer]

But I really think she should get bonus points for coming up with a new frivolous position. The old ones were getting boring.

[Burnaby49]

This is a perfectly logical extension of CTC reasoning.

Agreed. Under CTC only individuals resident in DC, Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico are taxable because they are specifically included in the definition of the United States. Under Bydeley's interpretation of "include" only Canadians living in houseboats would be taxable. They'd all better be pretty rich.

[Pottapaug1938]

Canada's motto translates (from Latin) to "From Sea To Sea" -- so it seems to me that if the Fathers of Confederation had intended to have the land mass in between become a part of the new Dominion, they would have specified accordingly when devising the motto.

I guess that this woman is onto something....

[Burnaby49]

Canada's motto translates (from Latin) to "From Sea To Sea" -- so it seems to me that if the Fathers of Confederation had intended to have the land mass in between become a part of the new Dominion, they would have specified accordingly when devising the motto.

I guess that this woman is onto something....

Well, if we are going to give full rein to CTC definition craziness the motto of Vancouver, my home town, is "By Land and Sea We Prosper". So both land and sea are included in the motto through the connecting "and" rather than one of them being excluded (in true CTC style) by use of word "includes". Does this mean that the only Canadian taxpayers are houseboat dwellers and the unfortunate residents of Vancouver? All this Hendricksonian logic makes my head hurt.

[Imalawman]

But I really think she should get bonus points for coming up with a new frivolous position. The old ones were getting boring.

Oh, I don't know that I give this credit for being new. Haven't we seen the "includes" argument around for years, not just by CTC?

[Famspear]

But I really think she should get bonus points for coming up with a new frivolous position. The old ones were getting boring.

Oh, I don't know that I give this credit for being new. Haven't we seen the "includes" argument around for years, not just by CTC?

Yeah, we recall that the meaning of "includes" and "including" as used in sections 6331 and 7701(b) (now 7701(c)) of the Internal Revenue Code was litigated before -- and decided by -- the United States Supreme Court over 50 years ago, in Sims v. United States 359 U.S. 108 (1959). Sims was not a tax protester case.

Tax protesters generally won't "accept" a holding in any federal court case (Supreme Court or otherwise), though. Some protesters pretend to "believe" that the Supreme Court has somehow interpreted the tax law the way they want it to be interpreted, and that the lower courts simply are not following the Supreme Court rulings -- which is blatant nonsense. Yet, when you push them to identify any court case (Supreme Court or otherwise) where a court actually ruled the way they claim to believe the court ruled, they bluster, and obfuscate, and try to change the subject. When you point out that all the court decisions go against their frivolous arguments without a single exception, some will try to argue (as Hendrickson did) that the courts don't really use the "right" words, etc., etc., so that the court decisions somehow don't really "count."

Tax protesters began trying to litigate "includes" and "including" about 20 years or more after Sims -- see for example, United States v. Condo, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9273 (9th Cir. 1984).

EDIT: Expanded citation: United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9273 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).

[The Observer]

Oh, I don't know that I give this credit for being new. Haven't we seen the "includes" argument around for years, not just by CTC?

Oh, I agree that this is just a re-hash of the "includes" argument. But I am applauding her for taking it to a new depth (no pun intended) by claiming that Canada only intends to tax people who live below or on the water.

[Imalawman]

Oh, I don't know that I give this credit for being new. Haven't we seen the "includes" argument around for years, not just by CTC?

Oh, I agree that this is just a re-hash of the "includes" argument. But I am applauding her for taking it to a new depth (no pun intended) by claiming that Canada only intends to tax people who live below or on the water.

Ah, yes, new application. I agree.

[Prof]

Oh, I don't know that I give this credit for being new. Haven't we seen the "includes" argument around for years, not just by CTC?

Oh, I agree that this is just a re-hash of the "includes" argument. But I am applauding her for taking it to a new depth (no pun intended) by claiming that Canada only intends to tax people who live below or on the water.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

[Burnaby49]

And the saga continues. Ms. Bydeley has appealed her Tax Court loss to the Federal Court of Appeal. So, on top of the income taxes she is fighting not to pay, she will also be hit with court costs when the FCA dismisses her appeal.

[JamesVincent]

And the saga continues. Ms. Bydeley has appealed her Tax Court loss to the Federal Court of Appeal. So, on top of the income taxes she is fighting not to pay, she will also be hit with court costs when the FCA dismisses her appeal.

Does Canada have the equivalence of a frivpen to also make her poorer?

[Burnaby49]

And the saga continues. Ms. Bydeley has appealed her Tax Court loss to the Federal Court of Appeal. So, on top of the income taxes she is fighting not to pay, she will also be hit with court costs when the FCA dismisses her appeal.

Does Canada have the equivalence of a frivpen to also make her poorer?

No. The most it will cost her is court costs. We don't have the extensive history of frivolous arguments that you've experienced and have decided to penalize. These cases are still quite infrequent, although they seem to be increasing, so we have not imposed specific penalties for flogging dead horses. The penalties that the Canada Revenue Agency can impose are largely administrative (late filing, excessive contributions to pensions etc.) rather than punitive.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I think it’s nice when couples see eye-to-eye. And it seems Ms. Dianne-Marie Bydeley, of the case that initiated this thread, has been entirely successful on that front! Or she’s just doing what her husband Steve is telling her. Just can't tell.

This happy couple is featured in a matching pair of judgments. One spouse even serves as the precedent authority for the other! How’s that for a match made in litigation?

• Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740: http://canlii.ca/t/flw8w

First, it’s Dianne’s turn! When stopped for speeding she responded that she did not have to give the officer any documentation because she was not a driver nor was she commercially employed as a driver: para. 11. But the officer insisted.

While the actual speeding ticket issued had been for driving 65 km/hr in a 50 kh/hr zone, the officer’s testimony was the actual speed recorded had been 80 km/hr. He had apparently given Dianne a break. The Crown, dastardly fellow, asked the court to amend the offence description. Justice of the Peace Stinson agreed: paras. 18-20.

No matter, it’s Steve to the rescue! He first argued the ticket was contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights. Whoops - wrong jurisdiction – that’s a federal act and does not affect provincial motor vehicle legislation: para. 24. Steve turned to some Charter rights protests but those were shot down: paras. 30-33.

Now we get to the meat of the challenge. The ticket was under the Highway Traffic Act. Ok, Steve said, what does “traffic” mean? Well it must be a verb - to engage in commerce: para. 35. No, the court does not accept that, and instead observes that there are separate aspects of the legislation that apply to “motor vehicles” vs. “commercial motor vehicles”. Ergo, “motor vehicle” has a broader meaning, including anything driving on the roads: paras. 35-38.

Well, how about the word “driver”. Steve pulls out that most trusted of references, Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition:

“One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle or motor car, through not a street railroad car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle.” ... Wallace v. Woods, 340 M. 452, 102 S.W. 2d 91 @ 97, a 1936 case from Missouri.

The judge counters with a modern Canadian law dictionary definition (para. 43), and observes this entire dictionary-driven approach is irrelevant because the legislation has its own definition: "“driver” means a person who drives a vehicle on a highway", and concludes (para. 44):

Now Mr. Bydeley may feel that this offends a principle that a word should never be defined by using that same word. And it may not have been the most elegant definition that the Legislature could possibly have used. However, there is no confusion or ambiguity to it.

Next, Steve says his wife isn’t a person. As usual, this is that inability to comprehend the meaning of the word “including”. Justice of the Peace Stinson points out that word has been explicitly defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in National Bank of Greece (Canada) v. Katsikonouris, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1029:

… that in legal drafting the word “including” is normally used as a term of extension, “designed to enlarge the meaning of preceding words, and not to limit them.

Last, it’s that classic Freemanism – I did not consent to your law. The response (para. 56) is succinct:

It may well be the defendant’s wish not to be governed by the HTA, or any other statute, for that matter. It may offend her personal beliefs, which she is obviously entitled to have. But, if she does not wish to be subject to the HTA, the solution is quite clear. She simply need not drive. The HTA, whether the defendant likes it or not, governs her conduct when she is the driver of a vehicle on a highway in the Province of Ontario. The HTA applies to the defendant, as it applies to every other individual person using the highway. …

Next it is Steve’s turn:

• R. v. Bydeley, 2012 ONCJ 837: http://canlii.ca/t/fwtwr

He was speeding, did not have insurance, and refused to produce his driver’s licence. This is an appeal from the initial trial, and features 20 grounds of appeal. Paragraph 2 reveals that Dianne had also appealed without success both to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and Ontario Court of Appeal. I don’t think either decision is reported.

Justice Shamai observes that Dianne’s appeals are exactly the same as Steve’s, and that means he is bound by the Ontario Court of Appeal conclusion which was:

In this case, I expect that Ms. Bydeley believes her arguments to be creative and novel, and I have no doubt that both her and her husband fervently believe the correctness of them. However, they are fanciful and have no air of reality – particularly in the way this trial proceeded. Indeed, as best as I can comprehend Ms. Bydeley’s supporting materials and submissions, much of what she argues has been the subject of judicial consideration since the time of confederation and interpretation of the British North America Act commenced. It is now well settled law.

Steve argues this is just a big conspiracy: “the witness, the prosecutor and the Justice of the Peace are all under the employ of those who have a hand in forming these statutes” (para. 13). That argument is rejected as it misapprehends the operation of the different branches of government and the nature of democracy.

Steve also makes the novel argument that an expired insurance policy is good enough to satisfy his legal requirements. No. “To suggest, as the Appellant does, that any piece of paper indicating that it is an insurance card makes a mockery of the clear intent of the law.” (para. 16).

I particularly like this summary of the Bydeley approach to litigation at para. 18:

In some ways the litigation undertaken by Mr. Bydelely on his own behalf and previously on behalf of his wife raise issues of access to justice. They show a citizen, not trained in law, attempting to argue principles of law as they apply to a set of facts, as he sees them. They show the disconnect, in so many ways between the way this citizen interprets the law, and the manner in which the law has been interpreted by those trained in law and those with authority to interpret and apply the law. In his refusal to be bound by the common law, that is the authoritative interpretation of laws by judicial precedent, Mr. Bydeley presents argument which eerily resembles the language as deployed by Lewis Carroll in his famous poem, “Jabberwocky”: It sounds like English, in the case of the famous poem, but it is largely comprised of invented words evincing meaning primarily to the speaker of them. The result is, that essentially Mr. Bydeley says, the law means what I say it means. In the presentation of argument thus constituted in Mr. Bydeley’s case, it cannot form part of the social convention of legal argument in an institution as fundamental to constitutional democracy as a Court of Law.

This decision incidentally appears to have the first reported case law reference to Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571.

So who are these Bydeley’s? They are the leaders of the Lapstone Ministries (http://www.lapstoneministries.org/), and have the interesting focus of interpreting dreams in a properly Christian manner. They describe themselves in this manner on their website:

As gifted international speakers, teachers, and prayer ministers, Steve and Dianne teach internationally on various subjects such as marriage intimacy, sonship, Christian dream interpretation, inner healing, dissociation, renewal, and related issues. They have appeared as guests on Trinity Television's It's a New Day, The Miracle Channel's LifeLine, Crossroads Christian Communication's NiteLite programs, and faithFM 94.3.

Steve has diplomas in Engineering Technology (Lambton College), General Bible (Emmanuel Bible College), and Computer Networking (NRI) as well as a Master Degree in Christian Counseling, and a Doctor of Christian Ministries (both from Christian Leadership Seminary).

Dianne has Bachelor Degrees in Arts (University of Waterloo) and Education (Western University), and Master Degrees in Education (Brock University) and in Christian Studies (Regent College).

Together they have authored Dreams that Heal and Counsel, Dream Dreams, a companion Dreams Workbook (and a Teacher's Manual both excellent for group study), as well as various audio seminar resources in cassette, CD, and MP3 formats. Steve has also written the life changing book Fathered by God and articles in various publications.

Their website has lots of stuff for those who are interested. No obvious Freeman or Sovereign connections, mind you.

Perhaps all this legal theory of theirs came from a dream...

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

who knew that stupidity was the gift that just keeps on giving?

Another of the intentionally linguistically challenged, and how did I know that Black's would get drug in to it all, so beloved of our sovrun idjits.

Sound like a right pair, and I am betting this won't be the last mention of them either.

[Pottapaug1938]

What I like about Dianne's case is that it explains why so many of these idiots are enamored of long-outdated legal dictionaries -- and why they are full of it:

[40] The defendant, in closing submissions, indicates that one of the reasons she chooses to rely on this definition is because of its proximity in time to the initial enactment of the modern HTA. The defendant feels that the language of law ought not change over time as this would change the law.

[41] But the language, and the law, are not forever crystallized or frozen. Both are dynamic. Meanings change, situations and society evolve, technologies are adapted. As one example, it is worth noting that the initial HTA in 1923 set the highest speed limit on highways outside of urban areas in the province at 25 miles per hour.