Sisk has not, until now, had his own discussion however he has been previously mentioned in this discussion;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10313&
Sufficient to say that Sisk is a marijuana advocate, a BIG marijuana advocate, and he decided to take direct action against the federal government's refusal to legalize marijuana by trying to get our then Prime Minister Harper charged with a criminal act by violating S. 176 of the Criminal Code. He did this by ordering the Edmonton Police Department to hustle over to Ottawa and arrest the Prime Minister. Section 176 of the Criminal Code reads;
Section 176 is in a somewhat unsavory section of the code being bracketed with things like this;Obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman
176 (1) Every one who
(a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling, or
(b) knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a)
(i) assaults or offers any violence to him, or
(ii) arrests him on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings
(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Idem
(3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Nudity
174 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse,
(a) is nude in a public place, or
(b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property, whether or not the property is his own,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Nude
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order.
Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc
175 (1) Every one who
(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
(ii) by being drunk, or
(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,
(c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
(d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Taken together these various sections gave me a vision of a naked, drunken Prime Minister Harper rampaging through a midnight mass shrieking obscenities while blasting away with a revolver in each hand. Sadly the basis of Sisk's complaint is somewhat more prosaic. The police officers reviewing his demands told him to get lost so he complained the Police Commission demanding that the police officers also be charged;Trespassing at night
177 Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, loiters or prowls at night on the property of another person near a dwelling-house situated on that property is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Sisk v Edmonton (Police Commission), 2015 ABLERB 16Summary: The complainant alleged that the police officers misconducted themselves by failing to arrest the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Health in connection with what the complainant suggests is an unlawful interference with the use of cannabis in religious rituals. The Commission dismissed the complaint as frivolous or vexatious and the complainant sought a review by the Board. The Commission’s determination that the complaint against the two officers is frivolous and vexatious is affirmed.
http://canlii.ca/t/gl659
Sisk claims to be head of a druid church that uses weed as part of it's rites. So the illegality of marijuana is an attack on the right to practice his religion. He could have gone the normal route of a Charter challenge under Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which reads;
But that's already failed in court;2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
R. v. Kharaghani, 2011 ONSC 3404
http://canlii.ca/t/flqf8
So he got inventive and tried the Criminal Code route. When that didn't work he tried to charge the officers who rejected him under both s. 176 and s. 122 of the Criminal Code. Probably making sure he cast a wide enough net to snag them with something.
Section 122 reads;[1] Kevin Sisk complained under the Police Act (“Act”) about Cst. D. Corcoran and Cst. S. Cech, police officers with the Edmonton Police Service (“EPS”). They had been assigned to deal with the complainant’s allegations against Prime Minister Harper and others, including the federal Minister of Health.[1] They had declined to charge anyone under s 176 of the Criminal Code, as the complainant wanted them to do. The complaint was made through the Public Complaints Director of the Edmonton Police Commission (“Commission”), who forwarded it, as the Act provides, to the Chief.
[2] This is what the complainant alleged in his May 23, 2014 email to the Public Complaints Director:
Constables Cech and Corcoran were assigned to EPS file no. 14-034431.[2]
Constable Cech conducted the interview. As I have shared with you in emails, Our Queen made an oath to Her Subjects on the King James Version of the bible. Both officers have sworn an oath of allegiance to Our Queen. I invoked 176 of the Criminal Code of Canada and let the officer know that the Prime Minister et al are in breach of their oath of allegiance to Our Queen and Her Oath to Her Subjects and insisted they charge the PM et al as per 14-034431.
Further I suggested if they did not charge the PM et al, I would see about getting them charged under 176 and 122.[3]
[3] The complainant also appears to be of the view that, because he has “invoked” s 176 of the Criminal Code, any action under the law that interferes with use of cannabis in religious practices is an offence.[4] He therefore appears to suggest that the officers ought to have arrested the Prime Minister and charged him with obstruction of a clergyman or minister contrary to s 176 (and, it appears, breach of an oath of office).
[4] In communications to the Commission, the complainant said that, if the Commission were to charge the Prime Minister under s 176, he would “see no need to charge the officers” under the same provision as well, “as for oath breakers, they were real gentlemen, save for the fact of their oath breaking ways and interference with my Ministry, they acted honourably.”[5]
I suppose it's a plus that Sisk isn't claiming that they ran amuck in a church naked and discharging firearms. In any case that approach didn't work either.Breach of trust by public officer
122 Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.
So to our case which was a review of the review. The Police Commission decision was reviewed by the Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board. The fix was in however;[5] On February 23, 2015, the Chief recommended to the Commission that the complaint be dismissed, under s 43(8) of the Act, as “frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith”. After reviewing the recommendation, the Commission reached this conclusion:
The Commission finds that the complaint made by Kevin Sisk against Constables Corcoran and Cech is clearly frivolous. Edmonton Police Service officers do not have the jurisdiction to arrest the Prime Minister for legislation that has been introduced and passed by Parliament. It is plain and obvious that the complaint cannot succeed. The complaint is clearly devoid of substance, lacking in factual basis, and lacking proper seriousness. There is no air of reality to the complaint. Finally, there are other means by which Mr. Sisk can choose to challenge the constitutional validity of legislation.[6]
I do see a slight flaw in the logic of Sisk's overall plan. While the Prime Minister heads the government he can't just unilaterally delare laws. Legislating the legality of marijuana would require a majority vote in Parliament and the Prime Minister has only one vote there. Prior to our last election there were 308 seats in Parliament, none of whom voted to legalize marijuana. So the correct response by the police should have been to arrest all of them. Perhaps this is the real reason the Edmonton police refused to cooperate in getting justice done. Too much damn work. They would have had to charter a 777 to bring them all back to Edmonton.Standard of review
[10] Given the material before us, we need not decide what standard of review the Legislature intended the Board to apply in reviewing a police commission’s decision to dismiss a complaint as frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. We have reviewed the Commission’s decision from the perspectives of both reasonableness and correctness, which lie at either end of the spectrum. Whichever standard is applied, the outcome is the same.
Frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith
[11] In its decision, the Commission said that it has in the past adopted this definition of “frivolous”:
When a complaint is either clearly devoid of substance, lacking in factual basis, absent of an air of reality, lacking in proper seriousness, or without importance.[7]
[12] The Commission also referred to past Board decisions interpreting the phrase “frivolous, vexatious or made in in bad faith”. As the Board has said before, an appeal will be “frivolous” where it is unreal or hopeless, plainly bound to fail or lacks an air of reality.[8]
[13] The Commission noted, first, that police officers “do not have the jurisdiction to arrest the Prime Minister for legislation that has been introduced and passed by Parliament.”[9] This is plainly true: a prime minister has not done anything unlawful merely because Parliament has passed a Bill tabled by the administration of which he or she is the first minister.
[14] The complainant submitted to the Board that criminal law takes precedence over civil law, apparently believing that the Commission erred in relying on the Act to dismiss his complaint.[10] He has relied on s 176 of the Criminal Code, which he appears to suggest protects a constitutionally-protected right to use cannabis, an illegal drug, for religious practices. Section 176 of the Criminal Code is not relevant to our review of the Commission’s decision. Nor is the complainant’s apparent belief that his religious liberty under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being violated. His complaint was made under the Act. That is the law that governs his complaint. It is the only source of legal authority for the Commission, and the Board, in this case.
[15] We acknowledge the complainant’s good faith—indeed fervour—in his beliefs about s 176. We also acknowledge his sincerity in defending what he considers to be his religious freedom. This does not, however, mean that the complainant has the right to invoke s 176 and seek to have public officials charged with criminal offences in defence of his beliefs and practices. Section 176 is not a shield or talisman that exempts the complainant from valid criminal or civil legislation.
[16] It is helpful to note, in passing, that s 176 does not have the meaning that the complainant believes. It is only triggered where someone “by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents” a clergyman or minister from “celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling”.[11] Section 176 also makes it an offence for anyone, “knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform” any of her or his “duties or functions”, “to assault or offer any violence to him” or arrest him or her “on a civil process”.[12] Contrary to what the complainant appears to believe, neither the passage of a law nor its enforcement qualify as behaviour that s 176 proscribes.[13]
[17] Viewed through the lenses of reasonableness and of correctness, it is abundantly clear that the Commission appropriately concluded that the complaint has no air of reality, is plainly and obviously bound to fail, and thus is frivolous within the meaning of s 43(8).
CONCLUSION
[18] Under s 20(1.1) of the Act, the Commission’s decision to dismiss the complaint against Cst. Corcoran and Cst. Cech is affirmed.
