Court File No.: M102/18 Date: 2018-07-26

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Patrick Ellis, Applicant – and – Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent

Counsel: Patrick Ellis, on his own behalf Danielle Carbonneau, for the Respondent

Heard: July 24, 2018

Reasons for Judgment

Faieta J.

[1] The Applicant, Patrick Ellis, states that he “brought this petition for a writ of Mandamus consequent to Justice of the Peace Gerry Altobello denying my informations due to an absence of photographic identification … generated by a Government”. He asks that this Court “… order the lower court to process my information and to process my informations under the 613 Laws and Commands as set out in the Torah”.

[2] While the Applicant’s submissions regarding the application of the Torah have no legal merit whatsoever, in asking this Court to grant a writ of mandamus to compel the receipt of a private information, the Applicant raises other interesting legal issues in relation to a justice of the peace administering an oath in relation to receiving an information under section 504 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

Background

[3] The Applicant states that he suffered injuries as a result of being assaulted by a bus driver, Marlon John, on October 6, 2015. The Applicant alleges that Mr. John followed him off a bus and punched him after he had poked Mr. John with an umbrella. The Respondent states that it is alleged that the Applicant yelled racial epithets at Mr. John prior to being punched. The Applicant states that he was taken into custody by the Toronto Police Service and was charged with assaulting Mr. John. The Crown withdrew the assault charge against the Applicant on December 16, 2015. The Applicant states that he spent ten days in jail based on allegations that the Toronto Polices Services and the Crown Law Office knew were false.

[4] These events have given rise to private prosecutions and civil proceedings including the following matters.

[5] On February 10, 2016, the Applicant commenced a civil action against the Toronto Police Services Board, the Toronto Transit Commission and the Toronto Police Services Board (see Statement of Claim – Court File No. CV-16-546403). On July 21, 2016, the action against the Attorney General was dismissed.

[6] On March 8, 2017, the Applicant brought a private complaint against Mr. John for assault causing bodily harm and assault. The Crown pursued this prosecution. Mr. John pled guilty to assault on March 16, 2018. He received an absolute discharge. The charge of assault causing bodily harm was withdrawn.

[7] The Applicant also laid private information of obstructing justice against the Crown prosecutor, Richard Garwood-Jones that had carriage of the assault charge against him. A pre-enquete was held. A summons or warrant to compel the appearance of the prosecutor to answer the charge was not issued.

[8] On April 16, 2018, the Applicant states that he appeared before Justice of the Peace Gerry Altobello for the purpose of laying information against Mr. John alleging falsification of evidence and obstruction of justice and an information against the Crown prosecutor, Mr. Garwood-Jones, alleging breach of trust.

[9] A copy of the Information that was placed before the justice of the peace is not in the record on this Application.

[10] The transcript from the brief proceeding before the Justice of the Peace reads as follows:

THE COURT: Okay. This is a courtroom, sir, so first of all I need to see a piece of identification.

MR. ELLIS: It’s kind of faded. I need to get new ones, you know. I’ve presented these before. They got water on them.

THE COURT: Do you have something with your photograph that I can …

MR. ELLIS: No, I got to make up new ones. They got, they got wet.

THE COURT: I’m not satisfied with this identification. I need a clear government photo I.D. for me to make sure you are who you say you are.

MR. ELLIS: Well that’s a problem then.

THE COURT: There you go.

MR. ELLIS: That’s a problem sir.

THE COURT: I need identification before I move on. That is not proper identification for me.

MR. ELLIS: Here’s my transcripts from the Chief.

THE COURT: No I need …

MR. ELLIS: It’s not …

THE COURT: … I need, I need …

MR. ELLIS: … it isn’t on me. I can’t get Canadian identification because it will strip me of my sovereignty.

THE COURT: You, you had something here that you got tax exempt but I can’t make out anything on it.

MR. ELLIS: I got my picture here well.

THE COURT: No, I need proper identification or I won’t deal with you. I’m sorry.

MR. ELLIS: I presented this before.

THE COURT: I don’t find it appropriate. Sorry sir …

MR. ELLIS: But it’s a picture.

THE COURT: … I’m, I’m not dealing with you until you bring proper identification.

MR. ELLIS: What is proper?

THE COURT: I need something that has your photograph and it is approved by some government agency.

MR. ELLIS: What if I’m not part of the government?

THE COURT: No. That’s it. I’m not speaking to you anymore.

MR. ELLIS: Isn’t that crimes against humanity and war crimes? Excuse me, may I please have your name?

THE COURT: A-L-T – A-L …

MR. ELLIS: A-L-T-O-B-E-L-L-O

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. ELLIS: You processed me without a bona fide sworn affidavit. Good one.

THE COURT: Okay the gentleman just left. He didn’t have proper identification. He had some type of paper that was all faded. It didn’t have his name on it or his photograph. [Emphasis added]

[11] The Applicant does not have a passport, a drivers’ licence, a health card, a Certificate of Indian Status card or any other form of government issued photo identification. The Applicant presented the Justice of the Peace with two identification cards: (1) an undated card that he admittedly prepared with his photograph, name, signature with the title “Anishinabe Nations of Turtle Island” that is barely legible; and (2) a frayed, laminated, undated “Identification, Passport, Tax Exempt” card, without the Applicant’s photograph, but with his name, signature, as well as the signature of Ka-Nee-Ka-Neet, identified as the Chief of the Anishinabe Nation of Turtle Island Indian Reserve. Given his statement described in the transcript shown above, it appears that the Applicant made both identification cards.

[12] The Applicant provided the following affidavit evidence, affirmed June 21, 2018:

I am of the Saulteaux-Soto Tribe of the Anishinaabeg Nations of Turtle Island and opting to refrain from “enjoying” the so-called franchise.

I attended the Ontario Provincial Court Justice of the Peace, 1911 Eglinton Avenue East on April 16th, 2018 for the purpose of laying a criminal complaint.

To demand I prove my “Canadianness”, as opposed to accept my Anishinaabegness, is consistent with the prohibitions set out under s. 46.1 and 46.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Otherwise, in the absence of prohibitions specific to molesting we Anishinaabeg, such absence would be ipso facto proof of intended genocide.

Gerry Altobello, a Justice of the Peace, refused to issue process due to his denial of my inability to produce photographic identification generated by a governing structure.

I am of the Saulteaux Tribe and have yet to see where any of the Anishinaabeg are required by Treaty or Royal Proclamation 1763 to produce photographic identification either by Tribe or by Government identification generation.

On or about February 14th, 2018, I attended the Law Society of Upper Canada seeking information. I noticed there was an information session concerning Racism and Anti-Shemite-ism. Marc Sandler was co-holder of this session. I sent Marc and email [email address redacted] on this date, expressing my concerns a possible reason for anit-shemite-ism could be found in the fact Elizabeth Alexandra Mary is a Jew as is Marc and we ought to be under the 613 Laws and Commands as set out in the Constitution Written in Heaven. I have yet to hear back from Marc. I also informed the B’nai Brith by email [email address redacted] of Hove Avenue, Toronto, be email stating the same concerns I had expressed to Marc. I have yet to hear back from the B’nai Brith.

On March 16th, 2018, at the trial of Marlon John, 1911 Eglinton Avenue East courthouse, I brought an application for Russell Silverstein, presiding judge and who is Jewish, for the trial to be attorned to the Torah Law. Russell denied my application.

In 2017 I brought an application for prohibition against the Toronto Police Service and City of Toronto to have the court order those two entities to refrain from molesting me while I opened a cannabis shop. With malice aforethought James Diamond slammed me, profiled me, slandered me, called me a “Freeman on the land” and rejected Alexandra Mary’s standing as head of the Tribe of Judah. James had this matter posted on . James is a member of the Organized Constitutional Authority (OPCA). James lacks statutory authority as the Constitution Act, 1867 failed to follow the necessary steps in becoming law. James’ judicial authority flows from its oath to Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. The Laws attached to James are found in the Constitution Written in Heaven. James is also of the chosen people being a Jew.

I learned Peter Rosenthal, acting for Topey, McAteer and Dror Bar-Natan (2014 ONCA 578 DATE: 20180813 DOCKET: C57775) was on appeal concerning the Oath of Allegiance. I searched the internet for his contact information and found his cell phone number. I called Peter and spoke with him a few minutes before the appeal to be addressed. The purpose of my call was to inform Peter of Elizabeth’s genaeology to Judah. After I informed him of this there was a pause. After a few seconds I asked if he was there to which he replied he couldn’t think at this time as his mind was set on the appeal. I did contact Peter through his email address to give more detail on what I discussed with him the day prior. I have yet to hear back from Peter. I did review the case summary as set out on . Upon my review I concluded the issues and laws raised were of the pagan common law absent any reference to: Elizabeth’s geneaology, Elizabeth the holder in due court of the King James Bible (KJV) and co-holder in due course of the pope’s Rhiems Vulgate Bible (DRV). Also conspicuously absent the arguments was the 11 word pre-ample to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, U.K. 1982, c. 11 (Charter), which is the Charter. While the panel could only judge matters before them they did conclude an oath of allegiance was to a non-entity, a parliamentary democracy, not the woman whose image appears on the Lawful currency of Canada. It may have made a difference had the issue of the British North America Bill of 1867 needing Royal Assent been addressed on this appeal.

I believe I was to have this affidavit served and filed by June 20th, 2018 but mixed up my dates with a proceeding to be heard in the Ontario Court of Appeal also slated for July 2018. As such, I rely upon rules 3.02 and 2.03 in the event I am late in serving and filing.

Position of the Parties

[13] The Applicant submits that:

• The justice of the peace denied my applications because I had to be “Canadian” and required two pieces of “government” generated identification.
• To procure or accept “governmental” generated identification makes me property of the agency who generates such identification thereby causing me to lose my Tribal identity.
• The demand for “… government generated photographic identification can only be viewed as an attempt at genocide. No Treaties or the Royal Proclamation command us or any of us to procure Government generated identification notwithstanding theories surrounding the validity of the so-called Treaties”.
• The Justice of the Peace “… went beyond his authority as a mere administrator in denying to take my information. Past justices of the peace failed to acknowledge Torah Law as being valid when I attempted to make criminal complaints to be decided under the Constitution Written in Heaven.”
• He has “… other matters in other courts of which I relied upon my own tribal identification and initiated my private prosecution for a private prosecution of Marlon Fitz-Gerald John. …”
• This court “… is bound to order the lower court to process my information and to process my informations under the 613 Laws and Commands as set out in Torah.”

[14] The Respondent submits that:

• The Justice of the Peace did not make a jurisdictional error in demanding satisfactory proof of the Applicant’s identity;
• Alternatively, this Court has no jurisdiction to review the decision made by the Justice of the Peace under s. 504 of the Criminal Code; and
• Alternatively, mandamus should not be granted for two reasons: (1) an alternative remedy is available that will not cause prejudice to the Applicant – namely, return to a justice of the peace with legible and valid photo identification; (2) to allow the Applicant to lay a further information against Mr. John without any new evidence is an abuse of process that should not be countenanced.

Analysis

[15] The steps in the commencement of a private criminal prosecution are found in sections 504, 506 and 507.1 of the Criminal Code. These provisions are reproduced in Appendix “A” to this decision. These steps were described by Watt J.A. in McHale v. Ontario, 2010 ONCA 361, at paras. 5-11, as follows:

The First Step: Receipt of the Information

5 Anyone who has reasonable grounds to believe that another person has committed an indictable offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a justice of the peace under s. 504 of the Criminal Code. By its use of the expansive term “any one”, s. 504 applies to everyone who lays an information (“informant”), including private citizens (“private informant”), peace and public officers, the Attorney General and the Attorney General’s agents (collectively "law enforcement informants").

6 A private informant who wants to lay an information before a justice of the peace must complete a standard form for submission to the justice. The private informant must provide sufficient details of the alleged offence to permit an information to be drafted, and list the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the witnesses whose evidence will be relied upon to establish the truth of the informant's allegations. The private informant must also indicate whether the police have investigated the offence alleged and describe any prior attempts the informant has made to lay an information or have process issued as a result.

7 The justice reviews the portion of the form that the private informant has completed to determine whether the allegations made satisfy the Criminal Code requirements and oblige the justice to receive the information. Where the justice is satisfied that the Criminal Code requirements have been met, she or he will direct the preparation of an information and have the private informant swear an oath or affirm the truth of its contents. Where the allegations of the private informant do not meet the demands of s. 504, the justice is not entitled to receive the information.

8 A justice who receives an information laid by a private informant, and determines its compliance with s. 504, selects a date upon which a hearing will be conducted to determine whether the process of the court, either a summons or a warrant, will issue to compel the appearance of the persons named in the information to answer to the charge (“the pre-enquete”).

The Second Step: Notice

9 In order for process to be issued, s. 507.1, which governs the pre-enquete (i.e. the procedure to decide that question), requires that the Attorney General receive a copy of the private information and reasonable notice of the hearing: see ss. 507.1(3)(b) and (c). Further, the Attorney General must have an opportunity to attend the hearing itself: see s. 507.1(3)(d). The Criminal Code does not provide a specific form of notice.

The Third Step: The Pre-enquete

10 The function of the pre-enquete is to determine whether the process of the court, a summons or warrant, should issue to compel the persons named in the information to attend before a justice to answer to the offence charged in the private information. At the pre-enquete, the presiding justice or provincial court judge must hear and consider the allegations of the private informant, as well as the evidence of the informant's witnesses: see s. 507.1(3)(a). The justice must give the Attorney General an opportunity to attend the hearing, to cross-examine the informant's witnesses, to call witnesses her or himself and to present any relevant evidence at the hearing: see s. 507.1(3)(d). The Attorney General's appearance at the hearing does not mean that the Attorney General has intervened in the proceeding: see s. 507.1(4).

11 At the end of the hearing, the judicial officer must determine whether a case for issuing a summons or warrant to compel the appearance of the accused to answer to the charge has been made out. …

[16] Section 9 of the Commissioners for taking Affidavits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.17 outlines the duties of a justice of the peace in administering an oath or declaration. It states:

Every oath and declaration shall be taken by the deponent in the presence of the commissioner, notary public, justice of the peace or other officer or person administering the oath or declaration who shall satisfy himself or herself of the genuineness of the signature of the deponent or declarant and shall administer the oath or declaration in the manner required by law before signing the jurat or declaration. [Emphasis added]

[17] The failure to comply with section 9 of the Commissioners for taking Affidavits Act is an offence under section 10 of the Act.

[18] A Guide for Newly Appointed Commissioners for Taking Affidavits published by the Ministry of the Attorney General states:

It is your obligation to satisfy yourself of the genuineness of the signature. The affidavit or declaration must therefore be signed in your presence and the deponent/declarant must provide proof of identity: See https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/notary_public/guide_for_newly_appointed_commissioners_for_taking_affidavits.html

[19] The act of receiving an information under section 504 of the Criminal Code is a ministerial act that is not subject to judicial review: Regina v. Jean Talon Fashion Center Inc. (1975), 56 D.L.R. (3d) 296, at p. 300. In McHale, supra, at para. 43, Watt J.A. explained:

In the usual course, criminal proceedings are commenced or instituted by laying an information before a justice alleging the commission of an offence. Receipt of the information is a ministerial act. Provided the information alleges an offence known to law and is facially compliant with the requirements of the Criminal Code, the justice must receive the information. The justice takes the information under oath and affixes his or her signature to the jurat on the written Form 2.

[20] It is my view that the ministerial act of receiving an information extends to the justice of the peace’s administration of the oath in relation to the tendered information. Accordingly, all aspects of a justice of the peace’s decision to receive an information are not reviewable.

[21] In any event, even if such decision was reviewable, I would have found that the justice of the peace had not committed a jurisdictional error in finding that the evidence of identification offered by the Applicant was insufficient to provide an independent, reliable third party verification of his identity. Independent verification of an informant’s identity is necessary to ensure that: (1) the person appearing before the justice of the peace is not advancing a fraudulent complaint in the name of another person; (2) the informant has not previously sworn the same information in order to prevent duplicative or vexatious claims.

[22] The Respondent reluctantly agreed with the Applicant’s submission that an informant’s identity may be verified by means other than government issued photograph identification. The Applicant suggested that his identity could be verified by another individual(s) who could appear before a justice of the peace to provide such evidence. That approach would be a more time-consuming and cumbersome process than simply providing government issued photograph identification and should be used as a last resort. It is up to a justice of the peace to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the evidence offered by an informant is sufficiently reliable to verify his identity.

[23] Finally, had I found that the justice of the peace committed a jurisdictional error, I would have denied the mandamus application as it appears that the proposed private prosecution is vexatious for two reasons. First, it contemplates a further charge against both Mr. John and Mr. Garwood-Jones arising from the same events for which they have been the subject of private prosecutions by the Applicant. Second, the Applicant asks that the information be received under “the 613 Laws and Commands as set out in the Torah”, which submission has no basis in law, rather than section 504 of the Criminal Code.

Faieta J.

Released: July 26, 2018

Appendix "A"

Sections 504, 506, 507.1 and Form 2 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

In what cases justice may receive information

504 Any one who, on reasonable grounds, believes that a person has committed an indictable offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a justice, and the justice shall receive the information, where it is alleged

(a) that the person has committed, anywhere, an indictable offence that may be tried in the province in which the justice resides, and that the person

(i) is or is believed to be, or

(ii) resides or is believed to reside,

within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice;

(b) that the person, wherever he may be, has committed an indictable offence within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice;

(c) that the person has, anywhere, unlawfully received property that was unlawfully obtained within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice; or

(d) that the person has in his possession stolen property within the territorial jurisdiction of the justice.

Form

506 An information laid under section 504 or 505 may be in Form 2.

Referral when private prosecution

507.1 (1) A justice who receives an information laid under section 504, other than an information referred to in subsection 507(1), shall refer it to a provincial court judge or, in Quebec, a judge of the Court of Quebec, or to a designated justice, to consider whether to compel the appearance of the accused on the information.

Summons or warrant

(2) A judge or designated justice to whom an information is referred under subsection (1) and who considers that a case for doing so is made out shall issue either a summons or warrant for the arrest of the accused to compel him or her to attend before a justice to answer to a charge of the offence charged in the information.

Conditions for issuance

(3) The judge or designated justice may issue a summons or warrant only if he or she

(a) has heard and considered the allegations of the informant and the evidence of witnesses;

(b) is satisfied that the Attorney General has received a copy of the information;

(c) is satisfied that the Attorney General has received reasonable notice of the hearing under paragraph (a); and

(d) has given the Attorney General an opportunity to attend the hearing under paragraph (a) and to cross-examine and call witnesses and to present any relevant evidence at the hearing.

Appearance of Attorney General

(4) The Attorney General may appear at the hearing held under paragraph (3)(a) without being deemed to intervene in the proceeding.

Information deemed not to have been laid

(5) If the judge or designated justice does not issue a summons or warrant under subsection (2), he or she shall endorse the information with a statement to that effect. Unless the informant, not later than six months after the endorsement, commences proceedings to compel the judge or designated justice to issue a summons or warrant, the information is deemed never to have been laid.

Information deemed not to have been laid — proceedings commenced

(6) If proceedings are commenced under subsection (5) and a summons or warrant is not issued as a result of those proceedings, the information is deemed never to have been laid.

New evidence required for new hearing

(7) If a hearing in respect of an offence has been held under paragraph (3)(a) and the judge or designated justice has not issued a summons or a warrant, no other hearings may be held under that paragraph with respect to the offence or an included offence unless there is new evidence in support of the allegation in respect of which the hearing is sought to be held.

Subsections 507(2) to (8) to apply

(8) Subsections 507(2) to (8) apply to proceedings under this section.

Non-application — informations laid under sections 810 and 810.1

(9) Subsections (1) to (8) do not apply in respect of an information laid under section 810 or 810.1.

Definition of designated justice

(10) In this section, designated justice means a justice designated for the purpose by the chief judge of the provincial court having jurisdiction in the matter or, in Quebec, a justice designated by the chief judge of the Court of Quebec.

Meaning of Attorney General

(11) In this section, Attorney General includes the Attorney General of Canada and his or her lawful deputy in respect of proceedings that could have been commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government.

FORM 2 (Sections 506 and 788)

Information

Canada,

Province of ,

(territorial division).

This is the information of C.D., of ………., (occupation), hereinafter called the informant.

The informant says that (if the informant has no personal knowledge state that he believes on reasonable grounds and state the offence).

Sworn before me this …….day of ……..…., A.D. ………. , at …………………….. ……...……………………………..

(Signature of Informant)

A Justice of the Peace in and for

Note: The date of birth of the accused may be mentioned on the information or indictment.

COURT FILE NO.: M102/18 DATE: 20180726 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE PATRICK ELLIS Applicant – and – HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FAIETA J. Released: July 26, 2018