2 total
Intake Court lacks jurisdiction to grant ex parte publication bans under the Criminal Code.
This decision addresses an ex parte application for a publication ban under section 486.4(2.2) of the Criminal Code, brought by police officers in Intake Court.
The Justice of the Peace dismissed the application, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction.
The primary reasons were that the application was not made by a Crown attorney, and that publication bans, even if mandatory when requested by the Crown, cannot be granted ex parte in Intake Court, which is not an open court proceeding.
The court emphasized the strong public policy favoring open courts and judicial accountability, stating that such orders require public notice.
The court convicted the self-represented defendant of speeding, rejecting his Organized Pseudo Legal Commercial Arguments.
The defendant was charged with speeding 60 km/h in a 50 km/h zone contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.
The prosecution presented evidence that the defendant was traveling at 70 km/h.
The defendant, self-represented, raised arguments based on Organized Pseudo Legal Commercial Arguments (OPCA), including that he was merely traveling, that the Highway Traffic Act lacked Royal Assent and was therefore invalid, that he was not properly identified, and that he was a victim of human trafficking.
The court found all constituent elements of the speeding offence established beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the defendant.
The court imposed a fine of $30, court costs of $5, and a victim fine surcharge of $10 for a total of $45.
