|
|
|
Harold Legere - Filing Suit in Federal Court CanadaFor more info contact: hallegere@shaw.ca 13 Jan 2003 - The following suit will be filed by the Plaintiff in the Federal Court Registry at 701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia at 10:00 am 13 Jan 03. The Federal Government has had since 1998 to implement the recommendations of the Joint Parliamentary Committee contained in the report entitled, "For the Sake of the Children". The minister of Justice seems to have his own secret report which I shall entitle "For the Sake of the Divorce and Deparenting Industry" If the Minister had any faith in his own proposed changes common sense would dictate that we would require less judges not more. Canadians (Some 22,000,000) have repeatedly made it clear in overwhelming numbers that they know that the courts of this country are bias in their treatment of children's right to be raised by both parents as clearly outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. o uncertain terms that we the citizens, of which I am only one, will not stand idly by while the state removes the most basic fundamental rights from our unheard children. It is unfortunate the extremes to which a citizen must go to protect ones children from the very people we elected to run this country but I personally, cannot stand by and allow this. I have communicated my intentions directly to the Minister of Justice and advised him that I would take legal action should he not answer my concerns prior to introducing new legislation. I doubt that he took me seriously, I am only one voter. I would like to assure him that I am indeed very serious. I will be available at the Federal Court for questions after filing my lawsuit. Copy of lawsuit: IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION STATEMENT OF CLAIM Facts The Plaintiff is a Defendant in a proceeding in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, New Westminster Registry under the following Style of Cause, NO.D042760 BETWEEN: AND: HAROLD JAMES LEGERE, DEFENDANT In these noted proceedings the Plaintiff has repeatedly been treated without regard to his constitutional rights and liberties by the Judges and Masters of the court including but not necessarily limited to the following instances. Master NITIKMAN of the Supreme Court of British Columbia made an ex-parte Order for sole custody of the Plaintiff's children and a Restraining Order prohibiting The Plaintiff's contact with his children. In doing so at a hearing Without Notice and without conducting even the most cursory of examination of the evidence and or procedural authority to conduct the hearing Master NITIKMAN violated the Plaintiff's right to be heard pursuant to the Principles of Fundamental Justice. In making an Order restricting the Plaintiff's contact with his children she violated the fundamental right of the Plaintiff to freedom of association pursuant to Sec 2 (d) of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC). It should be noted here that service, on the Plaintiff, of the application in the Supreme Court could have been effected in a matter of minutes pursuant to Rule 11 (6.1) (b) of the Supreme Court Rules, a regulation pursuant to the Court Rules Act (RSBC). And further, such restriction violated the Plaintiff's right to freedom of expression pursuant to Sec 2 (b) of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC). The ability of a parent to express their beliefs to their children is a common law right and is a protected function under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Master NITIKMAN refused to listen to the Plaintiff's argument on the statutory requirements for the ex-parte Order for sole custody of the Plaintiff's children in the Supreme Court proceedings. In fact she interrupted and stated to the Plaintiff, "I will not be lectured by you on the law" or words to that effect. At that time the Plaintiff was in the middle of reading verbatim from Sec. 22 of the Family Relations Act (RSBC). This refusal to allow the Plaintiff to be heard was and is a violation of the Principles of Fundamental Justice and thus a violation of the right of the Plaintiff to equal treatment under the law pursuant to Sec 15 (1) of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC). Every party has a right to be fully heard at a hearing pursuant to the Principles of Fundamental Justice. This ex-parte Order was also a violation of a statutory provision under Sec. 22 of the Family Relations Act (RSBC) and thus a violation of the right of the Plaintiff to equal treatment under the law pursuant to Sec. 15 (1) of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC) Officers of the New Westminster Police Department, a department of the City of New Westminster, a corporate entity pursuant to the statutes of the Province of British Columbia did fingerprint and photograph the Plaintiff without legal authority and thus violated his right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure pursuant to Sec.8 of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC) Officers of the New Westminster Police Department, a department of the City of New Westminster, a corporate entity pursuant to the statutes of the Province of British Columbia did incarcerate the Plaintiff without legal authority and thus violated his right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. pursuant to Sec.9 of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC) Judge FRASER of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, during the hearing of an application pursuant to Rule 18 (A) of the Supreme Court Rules, a regulation pursuant to the Supreme Court Act (RSBC) incarcerated the Plaintiff for a period of two hours after the Plaintiff had challenged opposing counsel on the accuracy of statements he attributed to a Master of the court. Judge Fraser made statements indicating that he had a bias toward counsel for the Plaintiff in those proceedings stating, "Mr. Hart is a senior and respected member of the bar and is seen as such by members of the profession and all of the judges. I take no account of your accusations and you have not done yourself any good by making them." or words to that effect. Judge FRASER in this instance violated the Plaintiff's right to be heard and the Plaintiff's right to equal treatment under the law contrary to the Principles of Fundamental Justice and also violated the Plaintiff's right to equal treatment under the law pursuant to Sec. 15 (1) of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC). By summarily incarcerating the Plaintiff he violated the Plaintiff's right to liberty pursuant to Sec 7 (1) of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC) and the Plaintiff's right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned pursuant to Sec. 9 of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC) and the Plaintiff's the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure pursuant to Sec. 8 of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC). Note: In submission to the Canadian Judicial Council, Judge G.P. FRASER stated that I was yelling in court. The tape record will show that my demeanour in the court was beyond reproach. Judge WARREN of the Supreme Court of British Columbia made an Order that the Plaintiff could not exercise ordered access to his children when the Plaintiff was scheduled to work either a day or a night shift. As parents frequently have their children and are also employed, and in fact the Plaintiff mother in the Supreme Court action was also employed Judge WARREN thus violated the right of the Plaintiff to equal treatment under the law pursuant to Sec 15 (1) of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC). In light of the fact that the record shows that the Supreme Court of British Columbia historically discriminates, in Proceedings under the Divorce Act, against parents who are male, and the fact that the Plaintiff mother was permitted by the Judge to have the children on days that she worked this was also a violation of the specific rights of the Plaintiff to protection from discrimination based on sex pursuant to the specific provisions of Sec 15 (1) of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC) Judge MacKENZIE of the Supreme Court of British Columbia made an Order regarding service of Documents upon hearing submissions from the Plaintiff in the above entitled Supreme Court proceedings. There was no Motion before the Court by said Plaintiff in the above titled action and Judge MacKENZIE made the Order summarily without any submissions by the Plaintiff (Defendant in the Supreme Court proceedings) Judge MacKENZIE further refused to provide Reasons for Judgement and thus the Plaintiff was unable to effectively pursue his pending Appeal before the British Columbia Court of Appeal. This was a violation of the Principles of Fundamental Justice in that the Plaintiff was effectively disabled in his pursuit of justice and due process of law. Upon review of the transcripts in these proceedings the Plaintiff is confident that further breaches of his rights will be evident on the record. Relief Sought The plaintiff therefore claims as follows pursuant to but not limited to Sec. 24 (1) of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC), Sec 2 (e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights (RSC): A prerogative writ of Prohibition retroactive to 12 May 1999 in the matter of LEGERE v LEGERE, SCBC New Westminster Registry, File # D042760. A DECLARATION pursuant to equity that the Judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia have show a historical bias against parents who are male persons in legal proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings pursuant to the Divorce Act (RSC) and the Family Relations Act (RSBC) and their respective preceding statutes. AN ORDER pursuant to equity that the Plaintiff , who is the Defendant in proceedings under the Style of Cause outlined above, or such Style of Cause as may be brought, pursuant to law, on the matters presently before the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the above entitled Style of Cause, shall not be subject to the provisions of Rule 39 (25) of the Supreme Court Rules, a Regulation pursuant to the Court Rules Act (RSBC) A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, with Certiorari in aid to quash the orders of the Supreme Court of British Columbia with regard to the continuing detention of the Plaintiff. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS on the Supreme Court of British Columbia commanding that the Supreme Court of British Columbia cease and desist from granting Without Notice Orders for Custody of children which is contrary to the statute in such case made and provided by the duly elected legislature of the Province of British Columbia to wit Sec 22 of the Family Relations Act (RSBC). As the Divorce Act is silent on the issue of Notice, the Principles of Fundamental Justice, and the stated will of the duly elected legislature of the Province of British Columbia must prevail. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS on the Supreme Court of British Columbia commanding that the Supreme Court of British Columbia cease and desist from using it's common law parens patriae powers for purposes for which they were not intended. To wit that the power of the court under the parens patriae principle does not extend to attempting to attain the impossible by purporting to select the better of two fit parents in making an order for custody and or "parenting time". AND FURTHER that court's parens patriae role is not a factor in a civil case between two non-state parties but shall only apply in an action by the state in it's child protection role pursuant to the appropriate statute. AND FURTHER that the Supreme Court of British Columbia be commanded to conduct child protection hearings pursuant to the provisions of the proper statute in such case made and provided, to wit the Child Family and Community Services Act (RSBC). An annual monetary payment to the Plaintiff in an amount which will bring his annual income to the level of a Utilities Shift Supervisor, at the Scott Paper Limited, Western Manufacturing Division. Such payment to be retroactive to 01 Jun 01 and to continue until the Plaintiff reaches the age of 65 years. An annual monetary payment to the Plaintiff beginning upon his attaining the age of 65 years to bring his annual income to the amount to which he would have been entitled had he been able to continue his employment to the age of 65 years. In the event of the death of the Plaintiff, an amount, payable to his estate, equal to any amount which would have been payable as a result of his employment with Scott Paper Limited. Punitive damages in the amount of $10,000,000. An amount of $5,000,000 of such damages to be paid into a trust fund of which the earnings on the Principle to be paid, on a monthly basis to, PCBC Parent's Coalition of British Columbia, a duly registered society in the Province of British Columbia. An amount of $5,000,000 of such damages to be paid into a trust fund of which the earnings on the Principle amount shall be paid to the children of the Plaintiff and of his partner Lynn MACKIE in equal shares with payment to be made to each in a lump sum of accrued share upon their reaching the age of 25 years and monthly thereafter. k) A DECLARATION that Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Dominion of Canada and/or in the Right of the Province of British Columbia did fail in her duty to ensure the equal treatment of the Plaintiff under the law pursuant to the Principles of Fundamental Justice and the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC). AND FURTHER that Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Dominion of Canada and/or in the Right of the Province of British Columbia did fail in her duty to protect the legal rights of the Plaintiff to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice pursuant to the Provisions of the Constitution Act (1982) (RSC) AND FURTHER that Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Dominion of Canada and/or in the Right of the Province of British Columbia did fail in her duty to protect the legal rights of the Plaintiff not to deprive him of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations pursuant to the Canadian Bill of Rights (RSC) AND FURTHER that Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Dominion of Canada and/or in the Right of the Province of British Columbia did fail in her duty to ensure the legal rights of the Plaintiff to the enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law pursuant to the Canadian Bill of Rights (RSC) Dated at New Westminster, British Columbia the 13 day of January, 2003 _________________________ Plaintiff This Statement of Claim is filed by Harold James LEGERE whose address for service is 202-812 12th Street, New Westminster, BC V3M 4K1
|
