Which brings us to R. v. Ainsworth: http://canlii.ca/t/gggrm
Mr. Ainsworth, age 50, is about to be sentenced for one count of obstructing police, seven Highway Traffic Act violations and one count of driving with no insurance. In other words, your standard OPCA fare.
First off, the court notes that Ainsworth is looking at about $6000 fine for the lack of insurance:
The other traffic violations racked up smaller fines:Ainsworth has not made much in the way of submissions to me on the subject, other than to indicate that he does have a family and he would find a financial obligation onerous. I recognize that the fine – the minimum fine that the legislation provides for with respect to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act violation is a serious one, $5000. And I’ll advise you, Mr. Ainsworth, that all of these fines will be accompanied by a surcharge, which I have no control over, it’s approximately 20 percent. So, I think you’re going to see about a $6000
fine for the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act violation. The reason that the fine is so high is that it’s such a serious thing to do. You seem to believe that the government’s going to pick up the tab for somebody that you accidentally run over and put into a wheelchair for the rest of their life. That is not the case and that is why this behaviour has to be stopped, and that is why the fine is so serious. With respect to that count, I’m going to impose a fine of $5000.
He's given some time to pay and the court notes that he was a whisker away from a flight police charge. Now on to the good stuff! The court explains the principles of sentencing and gives Ainsworth some valuable life lessons:With respect to the speeding infraction, I’m going to impose the set fine of $280. With the respect to the fail to identify yourself, a fine of $85. With respect to the fail to surrender a licence, $85, driver failed to surrender permit, $85, fail to have plates, $85, owner no permit applied for, $85, and fail to have current validated permit, also $85.
Having listened to you today and over the course of your trial, I have come to the conclusion that the only hope for your rehabilitation is to divert you from acting on this philosophy of life that you seem to have adopted. That philosophy makes you both a nuisance and a danger to your fellow citizens. You show no signs of even wishing to be diverted from that course of your own free will and thus any court effort to dissuade you likely falls more properly under the rubric of specific deterrenence, rather than rehabilitation. Let me be clear, you’re entitled to think what you want, but when you put those thoughts into action and you break laws, you must be stopped. There is a need to stop you and also to denounce your conduct. By your actions of February 2nd, 2014, you present an active danger to the public. Had you been charged with flight from police, as you might well have been, several months jail would be in order today. You do not accept that you present such a danger. You maintained this stance throughout your trial, you maintained it today.
Hmmm... things don't seem too promising for our protagonist at this point. If Ainsworth didn't have that sinking feeling at this point, surely he would with this next bit:
Uh oh... not good. Next, it seems that Ainsworth was not the only person in the courtroom:In your trial you went so far as to state under oath and I quote, “I cannot obey God and the government at the same time, I have chosen to obey God and all other laws have no effect on me. I do not obey them.” And I note the present tense. In argument you stated and I quote, “I formally and on the record reject all man made laws.” What this case absolutely cries out for is specific deterrence, that is speaking to you directly that you cannot go on in this fashion. You stand - you don’t stand you sit – before me as an unrepentant scofflaw. You argue that the government is a fictitious corporation whose laws are to be flouted. It falls to me to try to impress upon you that the force of the law is not fictitious.
A mystery man giving advice in the front row!! Who could it be? One of the established OPCA old heads or a new aspiring star?I will also take the opportunity to speak to general deterrence, to speak to your friends or as you referred to them, your colleagues, particularly the gentleman in the front row, from whom you have taken advice throughout this trial. You have so obligingly brought all these people along, so that I can speak to them directly. They need to get the message as well. Mr. Ainsworth and your friends and all other like minded people need to know that the courts will enforce the law.
Anyways, the end result was predictable:
Our hero was NOT going to take this lying down! The following exchange occurs:And you are therefore sentenced as follows, I’m going to note the two days of pretrial custody and I’m going to give you credit at one and a half for one, as is customary, for three days credit. There will be a further 27 days incarceration for a total sentence of 30 days. You’re in custody under sentence, sir.
Privilege of benefits? I haven't heard of that one before...STEPHEN AINSWORTH: Objection, Your Honour. I do not consent to your privilege of benefits here.
THE COURT: Sadly, Mr. Ainsworth, consent is not required.
STEPHEN AINSWORTH: Objection, Your Honour. I don’t consent to any privilege of benefits here.
A brief recess followed at which point Ainsworth was brought back up because the judge forgot to impose the victim fine surcharge as well as a probation order. This proved completely unacceptable:
What a retort! What colossal argumentation! The judge either ignored him or was so stunned by this rhetorical prowess that he moved right along to the terms of probation. Again, this was unacceptable:STEPHEN AINSWORTH: Objection, Your Honour. I don’t accept any of your contracts or offers today.
THE COURT: Well, I think you’re learning, Mr. Ainsworth – I hope you’re learning – I hope you give it some thought while you’re in custody that...
STEPHEN AINSWORTH: You’re saying no one can follow their God, they must follow you. That is a tremendous breach of religious rights. And you’re saying that only person – I’ve caused no harm, no damage to anyone. And you’re saying I can’t freely go about this land...
THE COURT: You might want to re-read my judgment. We can provide it to you if you want. But you’re going to be bound by a probation order, it’s going to be for 12 months...
STEPHEN AINSWORTH: You can be bound by it.
The final word, however, belonged to the court in a brilliant one-liner:STEPHEN AINSWORTH: Objection. I don’t accept any contracts or offers made today.
THE COURT: Mr. Ainsworth, if you don’t accept the orders of the court – these are not contracts and they are not offers. If you do...
STEPHEN AINSWORTH: I cannot go against my creator’s will and that – you’re condemning me to hell. I have to follow my creator. By rejecting him and following you - you cannot offer for me to do that. There’s nothing you can do to – I will not to do it.
THE COURT: If you don’t obey the law, then you can get used to taking up residence at Central East Correctional Centre.
STEPHEN AINSWORTH: That’s what has to be, then that’s what it is.
