What Meads v Meads taught us - canadian government conspiracies

Canadian Bill of Rights
Go to content

Main menu:

What Meads v Meads taught us

Our Human Rights
What Meads v Meads taught us
Last revised on July 18, 2017

see "Important" in the Recent Revisions section above

In Meads vs Meads the Judge went to great lengths to make it clear what arguments could not be used to influence a statutory court hearing and was in line with the guide lines put forward In a unanimous high bench endorsed the Canadian Judicial Council’s 2006 statement of principles [https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/news_en.asp?selMenu=news_2006_1212_en.asp] on self-represented litigants that judges “should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.”

That is exactly what Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke’s decision in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII) did when he referred to a category of vexatious litigants that he called “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants.

What Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke’s decision told the (OPCA) litigants was the arguments being used were not being used in the proper courts. He did not say they are wrong!
 
Duality of legal traditions and application of provincial law - 8.1 Interpretation Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21)
 
8.1 Both the common law and the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada and, unless otherwise provided by law, if in interpreting an enactment it is necessary to refer to a province’s rules, principles or concepts forming part of the law of property and civil rights, reference must be made to the rules, principles and concepts in force in the province at the time the enactment is being applied.

Copyright 2015-2017 - all Human Rights Reserved
Blog
Back to content | Back to main menu