Discussion:
To those who wanted the J. WILTON LITTLECHILD, M.P. v. Citizens of Canada Case
(too old to reply)
sparkymandoe
2006-02-24 00:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Docket No. 9012000725



IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WETASKIWIN



BETWEEN:



ERIN WALL, PIETER BROER, IRENE LOVELL, JOE KURTA

JAMES MANN, KEITH BEEBE, LYLE LINK, and DALE HATALA

as and for the constituency of Wetaskiwin and the

Citizens of Canada



PLAINTIFFS



- and -





J. WILTON LITTLECHILD, M.P.



DEFENDANT



REASONS F .0 R J U D G M E N T





Wetaskiwin, Alberta

10th December, A.D. 1990



Proceedings taken in The Court of Queen's Bench, Law Courts

Wetaskiwin, Alberta.

10th December, 1990



The Honourable Mr. Justice, E.A. Marshall Justice of The Court of
Queen's Bench of Alberta



E. Molstad, Esq. For the Defendant





E. Wall For the Plaintiffs



Official Court Recorder





THE COURT: Thank you. Well as you suggested and conceded Ms.
Wall, it appears clear to me that the Statement of Claim must be struck
out -- that legal proceedings are not the correct forum to seek the relief
which has been sought. Counsel for Mr. Littlechild have outlined the law.
The Statement of Claim alleges a failure on the part of Mr. Littlechild to
consult with the constituency members and a failure on his part to account
to them, further failing to ascertain their views in voting f6r the
government's goods and services tax and failing to adequately represent
their views in his voting for the government's goods and services tax. It
appears that the action is a claim of a breach of duty on the part of the
M.P. of the Plaintiffs. It seems clear on the authorities and I note in
Roman Corporation which has been cited, that if I have any doubt on this
application, as to whether the Plaintiffs have a cause of action, I must
givethe benefit of that doubt to the Plaintiffs and refuse the application
and leave the matter to be decided at a trial. However I am satisfied the
Plaintiffs have no cause of action against the Defendant. I know of no
legal duty on an elected representative at any level of government to
consult with his constituents or determine their views. While such an
obligation may generally be considered desirable, there is no legal
requirement. I adopt the quotation from the trial in the Roman Corporation
case, where he said:

"It is of the essence of our parliament system of government that our
elected representatives should be able to perform their duties courageously
and resolutely in what they consider to be the best interests of Canada,
free from any worry of being called to account anywhere except in
parliament.”

So it appears to me that the only remedy existing for the Plaintiffs is the
remedy provided by our Constitution in the right to vote in a future
election. I note also that the prayer for relief gives some difficulty.
They request an Order of the Court recalling the Defendant to account to the
Plaintiffs in his constituency for his actions in parliament. I would be
inclined to strike the Statement of Claim on that paragraph as well. But,
I note they do make a prayer for such other relief as the Court shall deem
just which probably is general enough that the action could not be struck
out on that account alone. So I am satisfied that no court can compel the
Defendant to account to his constituents and just to show you what really
occurs in this application, Ms. Wall, what I am really assuming for the
moment is that everything you have said in the Statement of Claim is
correct. Even if that is all true the Court can't give you assistance
because in the drafting and the exercise in the use of our constitution
through the decades, it has been the wisdom of our Fathers of Confederation
and others that M.P.'s must be given a right to carry out their duties
without any worry about being called to account during their term of office.
That is the way our constitution was drafted and I must take judicial notice
of the Act – which relates to Members of Parliament, the Parliament of
Canada Act, that the members of the House of Commons enjoy all the
privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament, Parliament of the United
Kingdom. So under the circumstances I am dismissing -- or I am allowing
the application to strike out the Statement of Claim and it will be struck
out accordingly.



The remainder of the transcript has to do with a discussion and awarding of
costs.
Semper Liber
2006-02-26 02:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by sparkymandoe
Docket No. 9012000725
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA
In reading the following [quoted below], it is abundantly clear that
legislation has no farther reach than that of the members of the
legislature, and we're totally duped into thinking our government is acting
as "power of attorney" in matters of consent, which is a requirement of
contract, which legislation and statute consist of in cases other than
criminal or common law.

Next time a fed tells you you MUST [for example] file an income tax return,
you can tell that person that you are NOT a member of the parliament for
which such a rule is required, and furthermore, any intimidation to force
compliance would be an assault under the criminal code [common law] and
result in their arrest and prosecution [see private prosecution].
Individuals possess dicio onis above that of incorporate non-persons.

------------------
"I know of no
legal duty on an elected representative at any level of government to
consult with his constituents or determine their views. While such an
obligation may generally be considered desirable, there is no legal
requirement. I adopt the quotation from the trial in the Roman Corporation
case, where he said:

"It is of the essence of our parliament system of government that our
elected representatives should be able to perform their duties courageously
and resolutely in what they consider to be the best interests of Canada,
free from any worry of being called to account anywhere except in
parliament."
--------------------------

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...