Brian Doody <doodycounsel@gmail.

com>

R. v. Guy Meister - Form 4F Notice of Constitutional Question - Relay (#2)

Information #0411998-22-11400790 - Trial continuance Jan. 4 & 5, 2024, Courtroom
#11, 161 Elgin St., Ottawa, 10:00 am - Electronic filing via
Ottawa.Criminal@ontario.ca
1 message

Brian Doody, MA, LLB <doodycounsel@gmail.com> Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 2:04 PM
To: clbsupport@ontario.ca, AGC_PGC_OTTAWA@justice.gc.ca
Cc: NCQ-AQC.Toronto@justice.gc.ca
Bcc: Brian Doody <doodycounsel@gmail.com>, Adam Blake-Gallipeau <adam.bg@thedemocracyfund.ca>,
amanda@legallypurdy.com, Donna Laframboise <thankyoutruckersbook@protonmail.com>, James Manson
<jmanson@jccf.ca>, rroberts@postmedia.com, dwalmsley@globeandmail.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 ss. 2(b) & (c), s. 10(b), and ss. 11(b)
& (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter), namely, “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and
expression,” and “peaceful assembly”; the “right on arrest or detention … to retain and instruct counsel without
delay and to be informed of that right”; and the rights “to be tried within a reasonable time” and “to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal,” to the facts of the defendant’s arrest, detention and charge with mischief (ss 430(1)(c) & (d) Criminal Code)
and obstruct police (section 129(a) Criminal Code), by police in Ottawa on Feb. 18, 2022, in the trial in the Ontario
Court of Justice before Justice J. Brunet in Ottawa, 161 Elgin St., on Sept. 21, 22, 25, 26 & 27, 2023, and which is to be
continued on Jan. 4 & 5, 2024.

Section 1 of the Charter allows elected lawmakers to place “reasonable limits” on a defendant’s Charter rights.
However, the defendant submits that he was engaged in lawful advocacy, protest and dissent at all times, and the
only “reasonable limits prescribed by law” on his Charter rights to “freedom of ... expression” and “peaceful
assembly”, “to retain and instruct counsel without delay”, and “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty”, were
set out in the province-wide emergency Order, which was registered in Toronto, Ontario, and became law on Feb. 12,
2022.

The defendant intends to question the constitutional applicability of s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, at Item #27,
which confers exclusive authority on the Parliament of Canada to pass legislation respecting “[t]he Criminal Law,
except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters,” which is
constitutionally distinct from Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, at Item #13, which confers exclusive power on
the legislature of each province to legislate respecting “Property and Civil Rights in the Province.”

Considering ss. 91(27) and 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the defendant intends to question the constitutional
applicability of sections 428, 429(2) and 430(7) Criminal Code to the word “property” contained at ss. 430(1)(c) &
(d) Criminal Code. “Mischief,” at ss. 430(1)(c) & (d)Criminal Code, is found in Part XI, “Wilful and Forbidden Acts in
Respect of Certain Property.” Section 428 states that, “[i]n this Part, ‘property’ means real or personal corporeal
property.” [underline added]

The defendant argues the only “corporeal property” with which the actus reus of the offence of (A) “obstruct[ing],
interrupt[ing], or interfer[ing] with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property” (s. 430(1)(c)) or (B)
“obstruct[ing], interrupt[ing], or interfer[ing] with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property”
(s. 430(1)(d)), can be concerned, based on the facts of the case, must be the immovable (real) corporeal
property comprised of the intersection at Sussex Dr. and Rideau St. where defendant was arrested
exiting movable (personal) corporeal property. [underline added]

The defendant also intends to question the constitutional applicability of s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which
confers exclusive powers on the provincial legislatures to make laws for “[t]he Establishment and Tenure of Provincial
Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers” (Item #4); for “Municipal Institutions in the
Province” (Item #8); for “Licenses” (Item #9); and for “[t]he Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or
Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes
of Subjects enumerated in this Section” (Item #15), respecting emergency powers conferred on the police and on the
Registrar and Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles of Ontario, pursuant to s. 6 of the Ontario emergency Order, to
“suspend or cancel” driver’s licenses or vehicle license number plates issued by other provinces, broadening the
officers’ powers under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown cannot prove that the defendant received the “Notice” that is required to be given to the “owner” or
“operator” of a vehicle subject to ss. 5 & 6 of the Ontario emergency Order dated Feb. 12, 2022, which adopts the
definitions of “owner” and “operator” in the Highway Traffic Act to confer special powers on police officers to give
“Notice” to an “owner” or “operator” to order the operator of the motor vehicle to “promptly cause the
[operator’s] vehicle to be removed,” whether on Feb. 18 or from Feb. 12 to 17, while the Ontario
emergency Order was in force.

The defendant intends to question the constitutional applicability of s. 7.0.11(4) of the Ontario Emergency
Management and Civil Protection Act (under which the Ontario emergency Order of Feb. 12, 2022, was enacted),
which states that “[n]o person shall be charged with an offence … for failing to comply with or interference or
obstruction … if the failure to comply, interference or obstruction is in respect of conduct that occurred
before the order was made” (which is Feb. 12, 2022, in the present case), which Order the defendant
submits modified the police officers’ legal duties pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act, and created legal obligations
for police to cause the defendant to remove his own vehicle from the intersection.

Section 429(2) of the Criminal Code states, “[a] person shall not be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 446
if they act with legal justification or excuse or colour of right.” The defendant submits that the “colour of right,”
pursuant to s. 429(2) Criminal Code, applied to the facts of the case, includes the defendant’s “freedom of thought,
belief, opinion and expression” and “peaceful assembly” and his right ”to be presumed innocent until proven guilty”,
pursuant to ss. 2(b) & (c) and 11(d) of the Charter, and submits that the Crown has not made out any of the essential
elements for a charge of mischief respecting any alleged “obstruct[ing], interrupt[ing], or interfer[ing] with” the real
corporeal property at the intersection of Rideau St. and Sussex Dr., (ss. 430(1)(c) or (d)), whether on or before Feb.
18, 2022. The defense thus submits the Crown has not established the absence of Meister’s “legal justification or
excuse” and “colour of right.”
The Crown cannot prove that any zone, district or other area of Ottawa was declared by law to be an area within
which lawful advocacy, protest or dissent was limited by statute or regulation, whether pursuant to s. 17(2)(c) of the
federal Emergencies Act (which section was not engaged by the proclamation of a Public Order Emergency on Feb.
15, 2022), or pursuant to any order or declaration by the City of Ottawa prior to Feb. 12, 2022, or pursuant to any
order of any Court.

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].

The defendant will argue that the Crown “evidence” comprised of a PDF document entitled “Facts for Judicial
Notice,” sent by email to defense counsel on Feb. 26, 2023, and other such email attachments with filenames such
as “Statement of Law on Judicial Notice,” or “Supporting Materials for Judicial Notice,” are prima facie inadmissible,
and should be excluded from the trial pursuant to s. 24 of the Charter, on the grounds that such evidence violates the
defendant’s right to make a full answer and defense, protected by s. 11(d) Charter, because the “Facts for Judicial
Notice” are not evidence of any corporeal property within the meaning of Part XI Criminal Code.

The defence submits that the “Facebook” posts, screenshots and photos gathered by police from open source
searches in the months following the defendant’s arrest on Feb. 18, 2022, should likewise be excluded, on grounds
that the posts were made for the purpose of “communicating information,” which is expressly excluded as a grounds
to commit “mischief” at s. 430(7) Criminal Code and which is protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter, as “freedom of
thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”; nor can
said posts prove any alleged “obstruct[ing], interrupt[ing], or interfer[ing] with” any real corporeal property other
than on a temporary or transitory basis, pursuant to Part XI Criminal Code.

Lastly, the chain of police custody of the defendant on Feb. 18, 2022, “infringed or denied” the
defendant’s Charter rights, inter alia, to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, because the police in Ottawa
did not follow the procedures to remove the defendant and his vehicle set out at ss 4, 5 & 6 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; He 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 them, are
set out in three Form 1 Applications, dated Sept. 18 & 27 and Nov. 5, 2023.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Doody, Counsel for the Defendant, Guy Meister

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.