Needless to say, I investigated.… In the time period from November 2005 to January 2006, Mr. Herbison appointed one David Butterfield, a self-styled “Educator and Defender of Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” to be his “Plenipotentiary”. The same Butterfield was the plaintiff in Butterfield v. LeBlanc, 2007 BCSC 235 (CanLII), 2007 BCSC 235. He appears to be what Rooke A.C.J. referred to as an “OPCA guru”. ...
There are quite a few reported judgments from British Columbia that involve a “David Butterfield”, but I suspect that is not the most unusual name. Review of the cases definitively linked to Butterfield indicates his full name is David Edward Butterfield. I’ll examine Mr. Butterfield’s record in chronological order.
Butterfield’s first definite appearance is reported in Butterfield v. Butterfield, 1993 CanLII 1245 (BC SC), where David sues his ex-wife Betty for malicious prosecution. She called the cops after he pointed a gun at his family and assaulted and confined his wife. David pled guilty to some of those charges in a plea bargain. Butterfield’s malicious prosecution action was struck out as hopelessly flawed.
The first appearance of unusual legal arguments is a few years later, in a pair of reported decisions that address a quite exotic subject; the legality of the British Columbia Worker’s Compensation Board [“WCB”] enforcing payment of money it is due under the legislative scheme by which it operates. In brief, the WCB requires that certain employers pay funds to the WCB and that immunizes the employer against a lot of potential tort claims by employees. It’s a kind of mandatory insurance scheme. Here, an employer, D.A.D.S. Transport Systems Inc. refused to pay, and the WCB instead seized and sold some of D.A.D.S.’s vehicles. D.A.D.S. challenged that at the British Columbia Supreme Court, with David Butterfield representing D.A.D.S. as representative of “The Union of the $hareholders (sic) of Canada Society”:
- D.A.D.S. Transport Systems Inc. v. Macdonald, 1996 CanLII 566 (BC SC) (http://canlii.ca/t/1f2rd)
D.A.D.S. Transport Systems Inc. v. Macdonald, 1996 CanLII 2172 (BC SC) (http://canlii.ca/t/1f2rf)
The second decision is brief and deals with Butterfield’s representation of D.A.D.S. He was not a lawyer, but was still permitted to represent D.A.D.S. Nevertheless, Chief Justice Esson explicitly indicates that he does not find that Butterfield is not in breach of the Law Society’s monopoly on representing persons in court, just that he will leave that up to the Law Society for disciplinary purposes. Justice Esson also stresses this decision to permit Butterfield’s representation should not be considered a precedent, and in fact the judge is himself uncertain if this was the correct thing to do.David Butterfield is the founder of Shareholders of Canada Educational Initiative which is based in Burnaby, British Columbia. In March 1997, David made a presentation at the Total Health Show in Toronto, Ontario. David's presentation was truly inspiring and motivating and many of those who attended expressed a desire to invite others to hear what David had to say. Michael Dunne, owner of The Valley Informer, published in Iroquois, Ontario arranged various meetings in Eastern Ontario and David made two more trips east in July and August 1997 when he made presentations in a number of Ottawa Valley towns. The Valley Informer continued to publish The Butterfield Report during the fall of 1997 and the winter and spring of 1998.
In March of 1998, a small group of supporters of Shareholders of Canada in the Ottawa area decided to organize regular meetings for participants on Sunday afternoons at Gerry's Steakhouse on Bank Street, just south of Albion Road. Thus the Ottawa Chapter of Shareholders of Canada was born. Now the meetings take place at the same location at 7 PM on Monday evenings. Readers of Discourse and Disclosure are invited to attend any of these Monday evening meetings.
A pretty unusual commentary if you ask me. In the modern post-Meads v. Meads regime there is little chance Butterfield would be permitted to represent D.A.D.S., but this was an earlier, gentler time.
The other D.A.D.S. judgment, released the same day, actually deals with the arguments advanced by Butterfield, and that were rejected. They all target a provision of the WCB’s enabling legislation that permits compelling payment of WCB fees. Butterfield takes three approaches, the fees are contrary to:
- 1. the 1867 Constitution division of powers,
2. the Magna Carta, and
3. the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7 and 8.
In brief, the Magna Carta does not have constitutional status. The Charter, s. 7 argument fails as that provision only applies to human persons and not corporate persons. Justice Esson points at analogous cases that authorize the Revenue Canada (now the CRA) to seize assets and that those also are constitutional. So much for D.A.D.S.’s arguments.Important as the Magna Carta is as a fundamental part of our legal heritage, I know of no basis upon which the Court could apply its provisions to set aside this legislation.
As for downstream consequences to D.A.D.S. for fighting this tooth and nail (it sounds like the company went out of business), Chief Justice Essons points at their adviser and indicates that is the source of their misfortune (paras. 24-25)
This is a fascinating pair of judgments, as this represents perhaps the earliest example I have located of OPCA litigation in Canada. Much of the concepts that subsequently drove the Detaxer movement are present, but in an embryonic form.… It seems likely that, in obdurately persisting in its refusal to meet its obligation to pay assessments, D.A.D.S. has been influenced by an adviser who demonstrates great energy and some ingenuity in conjuring up unusual arguments of law but who fails to consider the practical realities. …
For D.A.D.S. to have relied on such advice, if that is what it did, may fairly be called a self-inflicted wound. …
Butterfield next appears in a number of 2001 income tax cases where he was found guilty of failing to file income tax returns in 1997 and 1998, with a total fine of $2,500.00. The first is R v. Butterfield, 2001 BCPC 103 (http://canlii.ca/t/5lfk), though at para. 21 Judge Dohm indicates written reasons were issued on Oct. 4, 2000 to reject a constitutional challenge to the Income Tax Act. I have not been able to locate those.
Butterfield attempted to attack the investigation of his tax obligation on the basis that the CCRA investigator, a Michel LeBlanc, had not been delegated authority to make that investigation. Out appears Black Law’s dictionary in an appropriately obsolete form (para. 6):
… The Defendant submitted that, even were Ritcey were properly delegated, he would be incapable of redelegating to Schneider. The Defendant relied upon the Latin maxim delegatus non potest delegare and quoted Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 513, in part:
A delegate cannot delegate; an agent cannot delegate his function to a subagent without the knowledge or consent of the principal; the person to whom an office or duty is delegated cannot lawfully devolve the duty on another, unless he be expressly authorized so to do. 9 Coke. 77; Broom, Max. 840; 2 Kent, Comm. 633; 2 Steph.Comm. 119; Blake v. Allen, 221 N.C. 445, 20 S.E.2d 552, 554.
This was a pretty common Detaxer argument back in the day, and easily countered since delegation was a functional necessity for the CCRA structure: para. 8.
Butterfield’s next argument is kind of slick but at the same time goofy. The taxing authority in Canada keeps changing its name, from the Department of National Revenue, to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, to the current Canada Revenue Agency. Butterfield noticed that LeBlanc had sworn affidavits that said he worked for the Department of National Revenue, and not the CCRA – a “false oath”. The Court rejects that irregularity as inevitable as the agency changed its name, and anyways was already addressed in legislation: para. 11.
The arguments just keep coming – Butterfield also argues that the CCRA had no basis to investigate him as having some potential tax liability. The evidence against him is ironic – Butterfield was promoting a Detaxer scheme for pay, but had declared no income (para. 12):
Next, Butterfield argues that his failure to file was an officially induced error – he had in 1993 and 1994 filed income tax returns that said “N/A” in most fields, and those were accepted. Surely Butterfield could rely on that. Well, no, previously case law established that “N/A” meant tax evasion, not a response: para. 19.… If the issue of genuine and serious inquiry could be said to arise, the evidence satisfies me that the requirement was for the purpose of obtaining information relevant to the Defendant's tax liability. Exhibits 9 to 14 filed by the Defendant suffice to raise a reasonable basis to suspect that the Defendant was receiving income from his lectures, video sales and workshops. That, with the knowledge that the Defendant was not filing income tax returns, provided Mr. LeBlanc with reason to initiate the genuine and serious inquiry which he did by Exhibits 1 and 2.
And of course, David-Kevin: Lindsay makes an appearance (para. 20):
R. v. Butterfield, 2001 BCSC 1420 (http://canlii.ca/t/4wr8), which is an appeal of 2001 BCPC 103, is brief. Butterfield successfully argued the trial judge was biased, and a new trial was ordered (para. 11):On March 6, 2001, the Defendant filed a document entitled Statement of Defence and Final Submissions. Paragraph 1 of that document is an attempt to reargue an application made to reopen the defence and to call evidence. On that application, the Court heard evidence from a David Lindsey, a sometime agent for tax protestors. Mr. Lindsey was an evasive witness, who attempted to keep from the Court documents which he claimed to have in the courthouse. Those documents supposedly would have shown that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency targeted tax protesters for requirements. That deplorable performance by Lindsey provided the Defendant with no grounds to reopen his defence. The application was disallowed. It cannot, now, be reargued.
The retrial decision is not reported, however the British Columbia Courts Online website indicates that a trial on those charges was conducted on April 17, 2002, and Butterfield was found guilty and fined $1,000.00. So, I guess that’s a success, down from $2,500.00?The allegations of Mr. Butterfield raise some concerns. I do not mean that I have concluded that there was bias on the part of the trial judge. That is not crystal clear from the transcripts. There is, however, in my opinion, an apprehension of bias, a perception of bias. It is not useful for me to summarize the events through the trial proceedings which cause me this concern. They have been referred to in submissions, and I think are obvious from the transcripts.
Butterfield’s last appearance in reported caselaw is the decision identified in Herbison v. Canada (Attorney General):
- Butterfield v. LeBlanc et al, 2007 BCSC 235: http://canlii.ca/t/1ql8b
How quaint!David Butterfield in his private capacity as a natural man
Complainant (Plaintiff)
And:
Michel Marc LeBlanc, Harbance Singh Dhaliwal, Martin Cauchon, Anne A. McLellan, Thomas Dohm, William A. Blair, Ernie Froess, Glenn A.P. Verdurmen, All in their private capacities as natural men and women
Conspirators (Defendants)
Butterfield filed “a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief and a claim for $10,000,000 against the defendants.”: para. 1. The defendants are the unfortunate Mr. LeBlanc from the CRA, the Crown lawyers in the 2001-2002 actions, various Ministers of National Revenue and Attorney Generals, and the two provincial court judges who found Butterfield guilty. They conspired against him. Butterfield claims he only pled guilty in the 2002 proceeding because he was ill (para. 5):
The Court summarized Butterfield’s position:… Mr. Butterfield pleaded guilty to one of the counts, advising the Court that he was “too ill to fight anymore.”
Butterfield’s action gets struck out as hopelessly flawed. Justice Bennett provides some more detail on Butterfield’s grammer-based argument:[7] Mr. Butterfield claims that, due to the way punctuation is used in statutes, all governments are corporations. He also claims that Canada does not exist as a federal nation and that the provinces are independent nations. The thrust of the arguments is that the prosecution of him was unlawful, and he should be compensated.
[8] Much of Mr. Butterfield’s argument is based on the use of grammar that he says leads to a number of conclusions, including that governments are corporations and do not have the authority to pass laws. For example, paragraph 3 of his Statement of Claim is as follows:
This Statement of Claim, is based upon legal definitions provided in “Statutory” instruments; certain internal “governmental” documents; a publication from the Translation Bureau as a special operating agency of the Department of Public Works and Government Services “Canada”; research results provided by individuals working with Justice “Canada” including Ed Hicks, Counsel, Legislative Services Branch of Justice Canada; Canadian Law Dictionary; Legal Maxims; Hansard from House of Commons Debates; and documentary evidence produced either by “government” or by former “government” employees/officers ; or grammar and/or language usage authorities and does not rely upon belief, theory or opinion.
[9] I quote from para. 31 of his Statement of Claim to illustrate part of the substance of his claim:
That evidence will show the real provinces are not “a part of Canada”, and are independent nations as established by the Statute of Westminster 1931. Definitions provided for the term “province” by both the Federal and Provincial “Interpretation Act” includes only the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory and Nunavat, and expressly excludes any geographic area known on the street as a province. i.e. Alberta, British Columbia, etc.
[10] Mr Butterfield claims that there was a conspiracy against him by the defendants, who are among the conspirators. Paragraph 43 of his Statement of Claim sets this out:
That by 1998-1999, the conspiracy had gained new partners in their wrongdoings with the “Department of Justice” and followed shortly thereafter by the “Province of British Columbia Ministry of Health”. The Complainant [Mr. Butterfield], was then made victim of their “selective prosecutions” and labelled as a “Tax Protestor/Anti-government”. The Complainant is neither a “Tax Protestor” nor “Anti-government”. The evidence will show that the Complainant is only concerned with the welfare of the people and their country, and other than being compensated for the fraud and human rights violations he has suffered, desires only to cause creation of lawful governments capable of creating public laws, and to serve the people.
[11] Mr. Butterfield claims, at para. 46 of his Statement of Claim, that he was defamed by the defendants and that they maliciously violated his human rights by unlawfully taking part in the prosecution against him.
[12] The above sets out the basics of Mr. Butterfield’s claim, although it is 59 paragraphs in total.
A touch fanciful, indeed.[15] I will first address briefly Mr. Butterfield’s contention that governments are corporations. Although Mr. Butterfield commenced with a premise and then carried his argument somewhat logically from that premise, the main flaw in his argument on this aspect of his pleadings is that his premise is flawed.
[16] Mr. Butterfield commenced his argument by relying on The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing. This literary guide is published by Dundurn Press Limited “in co-operation with Public Works and Government Services Canada Translation Bureau”. Mr. Butterfield relies on 4.21(c) which states:
4.21 Geographic Terms
(c) Do not capitalize a generic term such as city, county, state or province when it precedes the proper noun or stands alone, unless it is used in a corporate sense:
[17] Mr. Butterfield’s argument equates the word “corporate” with the word “corporation” and he limits the word corporation to mean that related to business. His argument is that since certain words, such as Province and City, are capitalized, then they must be corporations, not government entities. The word “corporate”, however, refers to forming a body politic, which can include, for example, a town with municipal rights. Indeed a corporation can be created by an act of the legislature to form towns.
[18] Mr. Butterfield overlooks the examples provided in the writing guide that he relies on where the corporate use of the word includes “Buy Province of Ontario bonds”.
The next argument is one that I see pop up every so often, first with Detaxers, and now the Freemen-on-the-Land. It is that in 1931 Canada’s constitution went poof, and therefore Canada is not a valid thing, so no laws are valid either. Weirdly, this concept emerged from a member of Canada’s federal Parliament in the 1940’s:
So that’s it for Butterfield’s lawsuit. The judges he sued get elevated costs given the serious and unsubstantiated allegations they faced, and their special status in the justice system: paras. 29-33.[20] The next primary part of his pleadings relates to his interpretation of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 and his conclusion that there is no such thing as Canada, as well as other legislation which I will turn to momentarily.
[21] Mr. Butterfield bases his arguments on the debate in the legislature. The date is not clear, but it appears to be 1945. It is a speech given in Parliament by Walter Kuhl, a member from Jasper-Edson Alberta between 1935-1949. He represented the Social Credit Party and later the New Democracy party, then returned to the Social Credit party. Also submitted by the plaintiff are writings of Mr. Kuhl and others on the issue that Canada is not properly constituted as a country. From this “fact”, the plaintiff argues that therefore Canada cannot pass laws which are binding on people who live (as he says) in the independent provinces, including the Income Tax Act.
[22] Mr. Kuhl argued that The British North America Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c.3, did not make Canada a federal union. Canada did become a federal state under the Act, but not a sovereign state. The Parliament of the United Kingdom still had the ability to pass laws that were in force in Canada. The passage of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 (U.K.), 22 & 23 Geo. V, c. 4, abolished the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865 (U.K.), 28 & 29 Vict., c. 63, which had permitted the British Parliament to pass laws affecting the then Dominion of Canada. Mr. Kuhl argued, as does the plaintiff, that because the Provinces did not enter into an agreement at this time to form a federation, that none exists.
[23] At the time of Confederation, several provinces formed the new Dominion of Canada. As time passed, eventually all the provinces joined, the last being Newfoundland in 1949. There was no need for a new agreement to be entered into in 1931. The Statute of Westminster gave sole authority to the Canadian government to pass its own laws, as authorized under the BNA Act, removing the power from the United Kingdom Parliament, save and except regarding amendments to the BNA Act itself.
[24] The Statute of Westminster did not permit the amendment by the Canadian Parliament of the British North America Act. This could only be done by the British Parliament. It was the convention not to amend the BNA Act without a request from and the consent of Canada. However, Mr. Kuhl continued with his arguments, and indeed published a booklet called Canada: A Country Without a Constitution.
[25] There are a number of flaws in the argument of Mr. Kuhl, adopted by the plaintiff, some of which are noted above. However, the short answer is found in 1982, when Canada patriated its constitution as a result of the Constitution Act 1982 which is Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), 1982 c. 11. As of 1982, Canada was a country with its own constitution and if there was any substance to the suggestion that Canada did not have the ability to legislate, (which there clearly is not), then the foundation for the argument crumbled in 1982.
I dug around to see if I could learn more about David and his adventures, and located a few interesting items archived in the “can.taxes” usenet forum:
- 2000: reproduces a letter by Butterfield to the Kamloops Daily News, and a subsequent news article: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/c ... WzG_EX5Z0J
2002: “David-Edward: Butterfield" complains about a Canadian television network, CTV, as “C”rap “T”ele”Vision: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/c ... Je5p8-FP4J
Sure enough, a decision from that period is reported, but David was not successful: David Butterfield Dba Sign Language Signs & Designs v. Canada (National Revenue), 1993 CanLII 5178 (CITT) (http://canlii.ca/t/1s5mc).A few years ago, British Columbian David Butterfield was operating
a shop that manufactured signs. Incensed at the unfairness and illegality
of the Goods and Services Tax that had been imposed by the Brian Mulroney
government, Butterfield decided he would not collect or remit the GST. He
proclaimed his position loudly, his business grew and the government did
not challenge him.
The “Discourse and Disclosure” article also provides more information on Butterfield’s early activities:
While "Discourse and Disclosure" has an active website (http://discourseanddisclosure.com) it seems to have shut down in 2004. Little of its material is archived in an accessible form.Butterfield's Society is now called Shareholders of Canada Educational Initiative. This non-profit organisation is based in Burnaby, B.C.. Under its umbrella, Butterfield speaks to Canadians, telling them of the illegal taxation being perpetrated by the federal government.
Last year he filed 1995 returns on behalf of 57 Canadians, marking all lines "N/A" and sending covering documentation. None of the filers asked for a refund. Revenue Canada did not question any of the returns.
This year, while more than 400 Canadians paid the fee to become participants ($50 for individuals, $100 for businesses and $10 for pensioners), only 105 actually had Butterfield file on their behalf. And this time refunds have been asked for.
Butterfield believes the government does not want to challenge the legality of its actions in court, knowing it has no legal leg to stand on. But in the event that it does, he is gathering his forces for a class-action suit.
And one last find – has David given up his discordant ways? No, judging from this 2010 post on a B.C. online news source (http://www.straight.com/news/allan-seck ... y-minister):
David-Edward: Butterfield. You have to admit this about him – when he makes up his mind? He sticks with it.David Butterfield-Human Rights Defender
JAN 30, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Of course nothing is ever going to change. The people in general have been kept ignorant of factual truths by and at the will of the corporation that calls itself a "government". If anyone wonders why these so-called "governments" always seem to favour the big corporations when passing legislation (which is all copyright protected, meaning it is a "private" opinion or idea) it is because the corporate government de facto itself, operates through "off-book partnerships" much like Enron did and stands to reap rewards as shareholders of those big corporations. One other way the corporate governments de facto allow their so-called "Crown Corporations" to make profits is by allowing them to create other corporations. Example: The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia created "ICBC Properties Ltd.", which owns the two Telus buildings, one in Burnaby and one in Calgary and then leases them to Telus. They own numerous other profit-making properties, as well. If anyone wants proof of their corporate (Company) status, do a "Company Search" on the United States Security and Exchange Commission's Website and the same with Dunn & Bradstreet's site, you will find them all listed as being a "Company". The same goes for the Canada Corporation, a direct subsidiary of the United States of America Corporation. This also explains why the "Canada Corporation" always appears as the lap-dog of the United States. Even further, if you read their copyright protected, private corporate policies (statutes), you will see they only apply to "artificial persons" created by those 'statutes' and only "within the geographical boundaries of" the corporate government de facto. Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary defines the terms "de jure" as "lawful, legitimate" and "de facto" : "as a matter of conduct or practice not founded on law". Look at the Governor General who acts as "Canada's de facto Head of State". This means every time that Gov Gen gives so-called "Royal Assent" to any Bill coming out of Parliament, she is acting as an "outlaw" and every such "law" thereby created is unauthorized and invalid, having no force or effect. Justice Canada has also admitted to me in writing that "legally", Canada is not comprised of any geographical areas called "provinces" that have names such as "British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan," etcetera. As result of all of this and more, we have all been subjected to gross violations of our Human Rights, as we are all being treated as "artificial persons" with "names" spelled entirely in capital letters which, according to the Rules of Grammar of English, is not "English". Either way you look at it, they're are all either a bunch of crooks with intent to commit crimes, or they are so ignorant of the facts that they operate with total incompetence.
SMS Möwe
