Brian Doody <doodycounsel@gmail.

com>

R. v. Meister - Form 4F Notice of Constitutional Question - Relay Information #22-

R15619 - Trial dates 21, 22, 25, 26 & 27, 2023, Courtroom #8, 161 Elgin St., Ottawa,
10:00 am - Electronic filing via Ottawa.Criminal@ontario.ca
1 message

Brian Doody, MA, LLB <doodycounsel@gmail.com> Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 2:37 PM

To: clbsupport@ontario.ca, AGC_PGC_OTTAWA@justice.gc.ca
Cc: NCQ-AQC.Toronto@justice.gc.ca
Bcc: Brian Doody <doodycounsel@gmail.com>

TO: The Attorney General of Ontario (Form 4F Notice of Constitutional Question required by section 109 of the Courts
of Justice Act (Ontario))
Constitutional Law Branch
4th floor, 720 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1
Fax: (416) 326-4015; Email: clbsupport@ontario.ca

-and-

TO: The Attorney General of Canada (Form 4F Notice of Constitutional Question required by section 109 of the Courts
of Justice Act (Ontario))
Justice Building
239 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8
Fax: (613) 954-1920; Email: AGC_PGC_OTTAWA@justice.gc.ca, NCQ-AQC.Toronto@justice.gc.ca

Dear Sir/Madam:

The Defendant, Guy Meister, intends to question the constitutional applicability of section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, namely, “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,” to the facts of Meister’s arrest,
detention and charge with criminal mischief (section 430(1)(c) Criminal Code) and obstruct police (section 129(a) Criminal
Code) by Ottawa police on Feb. 18, 2022, in the trial before Mr. Justice Jonathan Brunet, of the Ontario Court of Justice in
Ottawa, 161 Elgin St., Ottawa, scheduled for Sept. 21, 22, 25, 26 & 27, 2023, in Courtroom #8.

The defendant Meister also intends to question the constitutional applicability of section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and section 2(c)(ii) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, namely, the rights “to retain and instruct counsel
without delay,” and Meister will show evidence of mixed fact and law to argue the implementation of this right was
inadequate and non-existent.

The defendant will also argue his rights “to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” (section 8 of the Charter)
and to the “security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due
process of law” (section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights), were violated by the federal Emergency Economic Measures
Order, which purported to allow the federal police to seize the defendant’s bank accounts. The defendant argues that said
Order is prima facie invalid because the seizure of bank accounts requires the exercise of emergency powers under the
federal Emergencies Act at Parts III [International Emergency, at sections 27-36] and IV [War Emergency, at sections 37
to 45], and cannot be lawfully enacted during an emergency declared pursuant to Part II [Public Order Emergency, at
sections 16-26].

Section 1 of the Charter allows a lawmaker to place “reasonable limits” on the defendant’s right to “freedom of thought,
belief, opinion and expression” under s. 2(b) of the Charter. Defendant therefore argues that the only “reasonable limits
prescribed by law” on his Charter rights to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,” are set out in the Ontario
provincial emergency Order, which was registered in Toronto, Ontario and became law on Feb. 12, 2022.

In the blended voir dire held before Brunet J. on Feb. 24, May 4, and June 23, 2023, it was determined on cross-
examination that at least three police officers involved in the chain of custody of Meister on Feb. 18, 2022, had neither
training in nor awareness of the Ontario emergency Order of Feb. 12, 2022. Defense counsel argues said Order, made
pursuant to the Ontario Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, modified the officers’ legal duties, pursuant to
the Ontario Police Services Act and Ontario Highway Traffic Act, and created a new obligation for police to cause both
Meister and his vehicle to be removed from the intersection.

Lastly, the Defendant will argue that the evidence of the chain of police custody of Meister on Feb. 18, 2022, “infringed or
denied” Meister’s Charter rights, inter alia, to freedom of expression, because the police in Ottawa did not follow the
procedures to remove Meister and his vehicle set out at section 5 of the Ontario emergency Order dated Feb. 12, 2022, in
a manner that would have “promptly” removed Meister and his vehicle from the intersection without criminal charges, and
therefore seeks a “remedy” that is “appropriate and just in the circumstances,” pursuant to section 24 of the Charter
(subsections (1) and (2)) and acquittal on all charges, on the grounds that police procedure on Feb. 18, 2022 would “bring
the administration of justice into disrepute.”

Further particulars on the material facts giving rise to the constitutional questions, and the legal basis for those
constitutional questions, will be set out in a Form 1 Application and at the trial.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Doody, Counsel for the Defendant, Guy Meister

Address for Service/Acknowledgment of Notice: Brian Doody, MA, LLB

Barrister & Solicitor // Avocat
DOODY COUNSEL LEGAL SERVICES // LES SERVICES JURIDIQUES DC
400, av. Daly Ave., Suite 6
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6H2
E-mail: doodycounsel@gmail.com (E-mail monitored during business hours)
Fax: (226) 785-0957
Telephone/Text: (519) 872-1905 (Text messages monitored 7 days per week)
Twitter: @DoodyCounsel

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The contents of this message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has
been sent to you in error, please immediately alert the sender and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.