Date: 20181217

Docket: CR 17-01-36084

(Winnipeg Centre)

Indexed as: R. v. Penner

Cited as: 2018 MBQB 200

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA

BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) Breanne James ) for the Crown Respondent ) ) - and - ) ) ) MARGO PENNER, ) Penner as agent for his wife ) for the Accused (Accused) Appellant ) ) Judgment delivered: ) December 20, 2018

MARTIN J.

I. INTRODUCTION

[1] When is a human being a person? Shouldn’t a human being be able to escape a photo-radar ticket fine because The Highway Traffic Act C.C.S.M. c. H60 (“HTA”) does not apply to humans, but rather only to persons?

[2] These are the questions that vexed Mr. Penner, as agent for his wife, on appeal of a photo-radar speeding ticket. At the trial, a justice of the peace, a Crown attorney and the photo-radar operator all needed to be present. At the appeal, expanded to include a “constitutional question” and fresh evidence, the Crown felt compelled to file thorough responding materials. Staff, including the Crown, a clerk and judge were required to deal with Mr. Penner’s arguments. The expense to the system to litigate this issue, caused by Mr. Penner, was unconscionable. The appeal was disposed of in under five minutes. These reasons took a bit more time but were done for a specific reason.

[3] I write them not to convey any insightful legal analysis but to provide precedent for the many justices of the peace and provincial court judges who are increasingly facing these specious arguments, gussied up like legal briefs with all the accompanying bafflegab. Those judicial officers should feel confident that they can dismiss nonsensical submissions summarily. And those promoting these points of view should know that their arguments will get the time and attention they deserve, little to none.

II. BACKGROUND

[4] On August 26, 2016 Mr. Penner was driving his wife’s car at 67 km/h through a 50 km/h photo-radar speed enforcement. In due course, a ticket for a $272.75 fine arrived in the mail. Mr. Penner, notionally on behalf of his wife, challenged the ticket at a hearing on May 18, 2017. Ultimately, Mr. Penner did not dispute any facts. As he said, he was there to prove he was a human being, saying neither he nor his wife had ever taken on the capacity of a person, and hence the HTA did not apply to them. The court entertained his arguments but quickly disagreed, entering a conviction and confirming the fine.

[5] Not satisfied, Mr. Penner appealed and filed a Notice of Constitutional Question, serving all the required parties including the Attorney General for Manitoba and for Canada. He sought to have the ticket quashed, an order to safeguard his and his wife’s human rights and $25,000 as a remedy for infringed rights. He filed a dense brief, transcripts were ordered and the Crown responded in a splendid fashion consistent with having taken his appeal seriously. All in, the file is about 3” thick.

[6] The appeal came before me on November 2, 2018. Somehow it was set for the whole day, likely given the volume of written submissions and that it invoked a constitutional question. I dismissed the appeal and constitutional question, with these reason to follow. Mr. Penner intimated a further appeal to the Court of Appeal.

III. THE ISSUES & ANALYSIS

[7] Mr. Penner’s first concern is that either the Crown or I had to prove that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case. Nothing of the sort need be proven. Regardless, concisely, the Court of Queen’s Bench has jurisdiction to hear provincial offence appeals (The Provincial Offences Act C.C.S.M. c. P160, s. 79(1)) and constitutional questions (The Constitutional Questions Act, C.C.S.M. c. C180) Further, to be clear, the provincial court that heard the trial has jurisdiction to hear such offences. (The Provincial Offences Act) Refining the point across eight “constitutional questions”, Mr. Penner submits the court does not have jurisdiction over human beings. This argument is too silly to address, and in part is related to the next point.

[8] Mr. Penner’s next point is that the HTA only applies to violations involving persons, and neither it nor The Interpretation Act, C.C.S.M. c. 180 defines a person as a human being. Hence, as he and his wife are humans, as distinct from persons, the law did not apply to him as driver or his wife as owner of the car. In fact, Mr. Penner says he has gone so far as to legally make himself a corporation. This makes no sense, Mr. Penner misses the point.

[9] Yes, he is a human being, but a human being is also a person. One only need look at the Oxford Dictionary to see that “person” is defined as a human being. To go further, Black’s Law Dictionary also defines a person as a human being. It is trite that words in a statute like the HTA are normally construed to their ordinary meaning. So yes, the HTA uses the term “person”, or sometimes “driver”, but obviously a person is a human, if one prefers that synonym. Finally, I note The Interpretation Act defines a person as including a corporation.

[10] Lastly, Mr. Penner says that the HTA only applies to people who are engaged in profit-oriented driving or travel. Not so. It applies to anyone who operates a motor vehicle, for pleasure or for business. All drivers must be properly licenced and obey traffic laws.

[11] Having disposed of these points, the constitutional questions have no merit. None of his rights were infringed and hence no remedy is available.

IV. CONCLUSION

[12] I do not know if Mr. Penner follows the so-called freemen-of-the-land philosophy or the strawman or sovereign-man theory or some other pseudo law belief but, regardless, they are all nonsense no matter how they are dressed-up. None of these notions have ever been recognized in law as a defence or to exempt anyone from the law. Mr. Penner does not get to sidestep the law no matter how he views himself, through whatever distorted lens. A very extensive commentary on these issues can be found in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571.

[13] Judicial Justices of the Peace, judges and justices need not pay any regard to these types of argument. Crown counsel need not devote resources to any meaningful response. These type of points, and there are many variations, ought to be dismissed summarily, much as the trial Judicial Justice of the Peace did here. Moreover, appeals such as this ought not to be granted leave (s. 79(3), The Provincial Offences Act) or ought to be dispatched with cold efficiency.

[14] The appeal and constitutional question are dismissed. The fine is upheld.

_________________________________ J.