And the list has some familiar members:
#1: R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160: http://canlii.ca/t/fwsm0
Justice O'Donnell's witty and pointed tale of his travels to the rural farmlands of Ontario, where he encountered the rare and elusive Freeman-on-the-Land. And wasn't impressed:
#2: Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=880522. There is no merit to Mr. Duncan’s jurisdictional argument. Such arguments are a waste of the court’s time and resources, a selfish and/or unthinking act of disrespect to other litigants and deserving of no further attention, energy or comment.
...
29. Near the beginning of his comments to me at the outset of this trial, Mr. Duncan proclaimed that he had no obligation to produce identification to the police officers. In that moment, before he continued down the Alice in Wonderland garden path of trusts and jurisdiction and dollar amounts and contracts and natural persons and administrators, Mr. Duncan momentarily hit upon the concept that would ultimately lead to his acquittal, albeit not by the rather circuitous and, with all due respect, silly path he wanted to go down. Applying the rather more prosaic concepts of the elements of the offence and an analysis of “who did what to whom why”, the only conclusion reasonably open to me on the evidence at this trial was that the police and Crown failed entirely to articulate a lawful foundation for the attempt to arrest Mr. Duncan. The evidence before me failed to demonstrate that the purported arrest of Mr. Duncan was lawful. A citizen is entitled to resist an arrest that is unlawful. Thus, even assuming that I were to accept the police evidence of Mr. Duncan’s actions as making out the assault beyond a reasonable doubt, an issue that is not entirely free of controversy, a nonsuit and thus an acquittal is the only outcome that is lawfully open to me on the evidence before me.
30. Mr. Duncan is entitled to his acquittal and none should begrudge him it. In assessing how much of the “freeman of the land” type of philosophy that he wishes to adopt in future, a philosophy that appears to focus to an unhealthy degree on freedom from societal obligations, he might, however, wish to contemplate some more productive reading on the internet, reading which emphasises the importance of responsibilities as much as society’s ongoing and sometimes exclusive fixation on rights. None of us is the centre of the universe, or, as best expressed by John Donne, “No man is an island entire of itself; every many is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” Mr. Duncan did not strike me as a fool and individual acts seldom define people, but the red binder he offered to the officers and the “affidavit of truth” he offered to me in court were regrettable descents into foolishness and Mr. Duncan would be well-advised to be more discriminating on what parts of the internet he models himself upon in the future.
I'll just leave it as noting that's familiar territory.
Unfortunately the report does not give 'hit counts' for each case, but for R. v. Duncan there were a total of 47,598 "consultations", which is pretty impressive by any standard.
I think it says much about public interest in this subject that these two cases were the most accessed items in the CanLII database. As I troll around the net I am often surprised at the apparently unlikely communities in which these Canadian cases are referenced. Such as U.S. gun advocacy forums. And Irish cigar appreciation groups. One thing that has clearly changed in the last several years is that there is a broad-based recognition in Canada of who the Freemen (and associated ilk) are and what they believe. And the public doesn't like them. Not one bit.
I think much of that understanding has come straight from judgments such as these, and that is a kind of dialogue that is both novel and promising. In Canada the legal community often speaks of "access to justice", the idea that legal concepts and the court apparatus should be territory open and familiar to anyone, not just lawyers. CanLII has been a remarkable tool in moving towards that objective. So is clearly written, accessible jurisprudence, and these two cases are excellent examples of that.
A few other observations. The third case on the hit parade is Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (http://canlii.ca/t/1vxs), a critical decision in that it sets the standard of review for court judicial review of administrative tribunals. Dunsmuir is a paragon of bad jurisprudence, a nearly incomprehensible stream of consciousness hash of text by one of Canada's least skilled Supreme Court justices, Michel Bastarache, a judgment universally reviled by lawyers and judges alike. Subsequent Supreme Court of Canada cases on the subject are at least partially incompatible, though in all instances still point to Bastarche's Bastard as the guiding authority. Pity the admin law practitioner. Here is a breaker of souls.
The fourth case is Magder v. Ford, 2013 ONSC 263 (http://canlii.ca/t/fvsgj), a judgment concerning alleged misconduct by a certain Mayor Rob Ford of Toronto. Yes, that Rob Ford. It overturns a lower court decision to strip the Mayor of his seat on counsel.
Then we get a bunch of cases prominent for general principles, with at eighth position R v McConnell, 2012 ABQB 369 (http://canlii.ca/t/frldk), the sentencing of a mother who drowned her two very young children in a bathtub. This was a very high profile media case. That mother was later deported to Australia where she killed herself.
The ninth case, Bedford v. Canada, 2010 ONSC 4264 (http://canlii.ca/t/2cr62), was a successful challenge to Canada's anti-prostitution Criminal Code provision. The decision was varied by the Ontario Court of Appeal and is going to be heard before the Supreme Court of Canada probably in the next year. The result will no doubt be fascinating as it balances many aspects of public policy, constitutional principles, and a multifaceted appreciation of the sex trade.
Last of the top ten is Doe v. A & W Canada, 2013 HRTO 1259 (http://canlii.ca/t/fzs73), a written decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in which they declined to hear an anonymous complaint. What makes this noteworthy? Allow me to quote a chunk of the complaint from "“Gloria Dawn Ironbox”, self-described as "womyn, expressing myself as a whole, empowered person free of the shekels [sic] of gender”, “lesbianism and radical feminism; complete separation from forced association with men”; and “living in a lesbian commune”:
Fun stuff!On May 31, 2013, I attended the Cornwall Square Mall and ordered a hamburger meal from the A&W in the foodcourt. It was my first time ordering from a fast food establishment of that sort. I noticed that the hamburger meals were given names of various family members (e.g. “Mama Burger”, “Teen Burger”, “Grampa Burger”, etc.) The sizes of the hamburgers increased with maleness and seniority in the heteronormative family (i.e. Papa Burger bigger than Mama or Teen burger… etc.). I wanted a light burger so I ordered the “Mama Burger” meal.
As a lesbian feminist, the whole notion of labelling a burger patron as a “Mama” or “Papa” or “Teen” based solely on the choice of meal is highly degrading and an attack on my womyn identity. The level of humiliation and degradation I felt exceeded that which I felt when I was raped. The whole heteronormative, phallocentric marketing scheme of A&W is highly degrading to non-traditional families, especially members of the LGBTQ2S community. Since that visit, I have found myself isolating and I have started doubting my own self-worth.
...
A&W should be required to develop and implement a modern burger family which is more inclusive and empowers members of the LGBTQ2S community. Science has shown that up to 5 adults can take part in the procreation process. Therefore, the notions of motherhood, and more importantly, fatherhood, should be completely abolished. Fatherhood is a concept which perpetuates the oppression of womyn and serves to legitimize our patriarchal, misogynistic society. Any references to males should be omitted, as at present, all forms of relationships between womyn and men are basic forms of institutional rape.
Though I'd hate to apply Dunsmuir to that. Or anything.
SMS Möwe
