[1] THE COURT:

INTRODUCTION:

[2] Eric George White was issued a violation ticket by RCMP Constable Rowbotham on September 9, 2016, for operating a motor vehicle, owned by his employer, on a highway without a subsisting driver's licence, being contrary to s. 24(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act RSBC 1993 c. 318. The ticketed amount was $276.

[3] Mr. White disputed the violation ticket. The matter came on for trial before me on May 18th, 2017, August 14th, 2017, and on October 23rd, 2017. The violation ticket is valid on its face.

[4] Mr. White does not deny that the Crown has proven the essential elements of the offence, and specifically, that as alleged, he did not have a subsisting driver's licence at the time he was stopped while operating his employer's motor vehicle on the Old Island Highway at the corner of Wale Road, in Colwood, British Columbia.

[5] Mr. White's defence, essentially, is that for the reasons I have set out below, he does not require a subsisting driver's licence in order to operate a motor vehicle on a highway. Mr. White had allowed his British Columbia driver's licence to expire on June 15th, 2016.

[6] As a result of various documents filed by Mr. White and served on the Crown, and based upon his cross-examination of Constable Rowbotham and some of his own evidence that he provided, I explained to Mr. White on the first day of trial that it appeared to me that many of the arguments that he intended to raise had been canvassed and disposed of by the Honourable Associate Chief Justice J. D. Rooke, of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 ("Meads"), and by other courts in British Columbia and in other provinces of Canada, as having no merit and having no legal foundation. I strongly suggested to Mr. White that he obtain a copy of Meads and review it before the continuation of the trial.

[7] I further explained to Mr. White in straightforward terms that in Meads, Associate Chief Justice Rooke had identified an extensive number of arguments that had been advanced by a category of vexatious litigants collectively labelled in Meads as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [“OPCA"] Litigants. This group included individuals who propounded a theory sometimes referred to as a “natural persons” theory that has been rejected by the courts.

THE EVIDENCE:

The Crown's Case

[8] The Crown’s evidence was presented by Constable Rowbotham. He testified about conducting observations of drivers and traffic on the day in question and specifically looking for drivers who were using cell phones. He observed a Ford 350 Cube van which, as it turned out, was being driven by Mr. White. Mr. White did not appear to be wearing a seat belt. Accordingly, Constable Rowbotham stopped the vehicle, at which time he encountered Mr. White and determined that he did not have a subsisting driver's licence, since his license had expired. He issued the violation ticket to Mr. White in the usual manner.

[9] The evidence of Constable Rowbotham was sufficient to prove the case of the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Defence's Case:

[10] Mr. White had prepared, and as I understand it, had filed with the court and served the following document by mail on the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia as the representative of Her Majesty the Queen, in or around April of 2017: A Notice of Application on Constitutional Issue (the “Notice”).

[11] In the Notice, Mr. White says that he seeks an order cancelling the violation ticket and for compensation “for damages incurred by the ticket, as well as relief from the solitude Her Majesty has forced upon [him].”

[12] The grounds for this application identified in the Notice may be --

[13] MR. WHITE: Sorry, Your Honour. Okay. I was just -- I just wanted to clarify that the word is 'servitude', not 'solitude'.

[14] THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. I meant servitude.

[15] MR. WHITE: Okay. Yeah.

[16] THE COURT: If I said 'solitude', I meant 'servitude'.

[17] MR. WHITE: Yeah.

[18] THE COURT: Thank you.

[19] Continuing: the grounds for his application identified in the Notice may be summarized as follows:

1. The police officer who issued the violation ticket, described as “an agent of her Majesty,” violated Mr. White’s liberty of movement.

2. The violation ticket is of no force because it violates Mr. White’s Charter rights.

3. The violation ticket is fraudulent because it claims there is a “victim to the offence” apparently committed (which I understand to be a reference to the printed portion of the violation ticket which mentions a “15% victim surcharge levy") when, in fact, the only victim was Mr. White.

4. The issuance of the violation ticket happened while Mr. White was and is “seeking relief from Charter violations that have and continue to happen” and while he is “currently being held in servitude” and his “natural wealth has and continues to be taken from [him] against [his] will.”

[20] The Notice says that the constitutional issues to be raised are found under Section 52 of the Constitution of Canada, the guarantees in Article 26 of the Charter and under Article 24(1) of the Charter.

[21] The Notice says that the constitutional principles to be argued are under Article 2(d) and Article 7 of the Charter. Further, by virtue of being issued the violation ticket that his “liberty of movement was restricted,” his “security was threated,” his “rights were violated,” he felt “intimidated” by the police officer “into taking a fraudulent ticket, a violation of my human rights,” as referenced under the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 1.(2) and 25."

[22] The Notice goes on to detail various statutory provisions or rules upon which Mr. White, as the Applicant, intended to rely.

[23] In his evidence on the first day of the trial, Mr. White said that he was not a “natural person” but he described himself as a “natural human” and a “free human,” noting that a “person” referred to a corporation. As I understand it, he subscribes to a view that he is “born free” and has the “capacity to remain free” but “the law tries to take away [that] designation” and “makes [him] into a class of being created by law and controlled by their law.” [See document entitled “Explanation of Classes of Being."]

[24] He further indicated that his B.C. driver's licence had a statement that reads: “This card remains the property of the issuing agency and must be surrendered upon request.” Hence, as I understood his evidence, his B.C. driver's licence is not his property. On the second day of the trial, he submitted as exhibit 5 documents apparently downloaded from Drive Smart BC entitled “Your Driver's License Isn’t Yours,” as a further basis for this view.

[25] As I understood his evidence, it is his view that the issuing agency of the B.C. driver's licence is the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia ("ICBC").

[26] By holding a B.C. driver's licence issued by ICBC, he says that he is being forced to “associate” with ICBC and does not wish to do so. By requiring him to have a B.C. driver's licence, it amounts to a violation of his fundamental freedom of association protected by section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”).

[27] As I further understood his evidence, he says he has rights not to be “placed into servitude” unless he voluntarily submits to that servitude. He enumerated such things as being required to have a driver's licence as a form of being placed into this servitude to which he does not wish to submit. Similarly, the issuance of the violation ticket to him places him in servitude and he has not voluntarily submitted to that servitude. I understand that he believed that Constable Rowbotham was violating his right not to be placed into servitude by issuing the Violation Ticket to him.

[28] He says that the right not to be placed into servitude is protected by section 26 of the Charter, which provides that guarantees of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

[29] Among the numerous documents filed in the court registry by Mr. White and which form part of the court file, although not necessarily entered as exhibits, are those entitled as follows:

1. Explanation of Registration of Live Birth.

2. Explanation of Birth Certificate.

3. Explanation of Classes of Being.

4. Declaration of Understanding and Claim of Rights.

5. Notice of Dispute and Intent on Claim of Rights.

6. Freedom under Full capacity and rule of law.

[30] On the first day of the trial, Mr. White tendered various documents to be marked as Exhibits, including a copy of the registration of his live birth and his birth certificate.

As I understand him, he is of the view these documents evidence an attempt by the Canadian government to register the creation of a “juridical person, ‘Eric John White’” which person was “created for [him] so that [he] may act in a legal capacity as a Canadian Citizen”. [See document entitled “Explanation of Birth Certificate.”]

[31] Mr. White further testified that he does not want to be a Canadian citizen because he does not want an oath of citizenship (I take it to Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Canada), and to thereby lose the “natural rights” with which he was born.

[32] As I understand him, he subscribes to a belief that the Government of Canada has seized “all of the natural wealth” and, therefore, “owes a debt obligation” to the “human man” who is “born into an existence under natural law and has full right to access the resources of this planet without interference.” I take that “interference” to mean interference from the Government of Canada. [See document entitled “Explanation of Registration of Live Birth.”]

[33] By the second day of the trial, Mr. White had apparently familiarized himself with Meads and learned about the court's characterization of OPCA Litigants.

[34] As a result, he wanted to make it clear that he was not an OPCA Litigant and that he did not want to be associated with that “misguided ideology.” Mr. White filed a document on July 26, 2017, entitled “Counterarguments to Meads v. Meads,” in which he attempts to both distance himself and distinguish his beliefs from those of OPCA Litigants and (unlike certain OPCA Litigants) to confirm his belief “in the courts and the authority of law.” He goes on to say that the Charter “protects us from the abuse of authority and establishes a framework so that all men and women can have an enjoyable and free existence.”

[35] He also filed a document on August 14, 2017, entitled “Considerations” in which he also stated that on the first day of the trial, he had some misunderstandings about some questions asked of him by the court about “free-man belief,” going on to say he believed in “being free, as a man should be and not some misguided ideology.”

[36] In his cross-examination, Mr. White confirmed that he did pay to renew his driver's licence shortly after receiving the Violation Ticket from Constable Rowbotham. He testified that he was “forced” to have a valid driver's licence by his employer. He also confirmed that he has a personal motor vehicle that he licenses and insures, but stated that he was “forced” to do so, but does acknowledge that it was his choice.

[37] He confirmed that he had renewed his driver's licence on several occasions since he first received his driver’s license at age 16, characterizing it as “obliging their demands” without consideration how just or fair those demands were, noting that before now he has never stood up for his rights. Thus, he is contesting the ticket on the basis of violations of his rights.

[38] He testified that if he is forced to obtain a driver's licence, that in addition to the violation of his Charter protected rights of freedom of association and the right not to be held in servitude, the Charter protects his right of freedom of movement (which I take to be a reference to section 6 of the Charter) and his section 7 legal rights of life, liberty and the security of person.

[39] Crown asked him about section 1 of the Charter which “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In his response, he agreed that laws could be created which may place limitations on his freedom as contemplated by section 1.

[40] He then went on to say that “I have decided I don’t want to be a Canadian citizen,” and he does not want to “associate” with Canada, although he did acknowledge he lives in the land mass known as Canada. As I understand him, he is of the belief that certain Charter rights may apply to citizens of Canada who have chosen to be citizens and that certain rights that he possesses (I take to be as a non-Citizen and as a free human man) can be protected from governments in Canada by use of the Charter.

[41] In cross-examination Mr. White:

1. Agreed that driving is not a right but a privilege and that the privilege is granted under the driver’s license, but then goes on to say that he should have a right to drive and that a driver's licence strips him of that right.

2. Agreed that privileges have responsibilities but that only applies to persons with a driver's licence, but then says that he has a right “not to be designated a ‘driver’ or a ‘tax payer’.”

3. Agreed that driving as a privilege requires drivers to obey the rules of the road for safety reasons and that laws apply to all drivers and that there would be pandemonium and a potential for death if people did not follow the law and the laws that reduce this risk.

4. When asked if part of that responsibility requires having a driver's licence, he suggested some people who meet the statutory definition of a "driver" need to do so but then goes on to say that he has “opted out” and does not need a driver's licence because he has retained his rights in exchange for the privileges that the government may grant to him.

5. Confirmed that he has attended schools in BC and has been to a hospital in British Columbia for medical care, and he holds a BC Care Card for medical services which he says he only uses if “forced to.”

Applicable Provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act:

[42] Sections 24(1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act read as follows:

Offences:

24 (1) Except when accompanied by a person authorized by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to examine persons as to their ability to drive and operate motor vehicles, a person must not drive or operate a motor vehicle on a highway unless, in addition to any licence or permit which he or she is otherwise required to hold under this Act, the person holds a subsisting driver's licence issued to him or her under this Act of a class appropriate to the category of motor vehicle driven or operated by him or her.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence.

Case Authorities Relied Upon by Crown:

[43] Crown presented to the court, and has relied upon, the following case authorities.

1. R. v. Westover, 2013 ONCJ 472

2. R. v. Jacobi, 2016 BCPC 121

3. Szoo' v. RCMP, 2011 BCSC 696

Crown's Position:

[44] Crown says that it has proven the offence set out in the violation ticket issued to Mr. White.

[45] Crown says that Mr. White's dispute of the violation ticket is based on the notion advanced by Mr. White that he was not bound by the Motor Vehicle Act, and he is exempt from following it and specifically exempt from holding a driver's licence, as required by section 24 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

[46] Crown says that Mr. White's defence is summarized in the Defendant's Notice of Dispute and Intent on Claim of Rights and specifically at paragraph 3 and 11.

[47] Paragraph 3 reads as follows, and I quote:

I claim by the issuing and enforcing of Ticket Number AH83605372, that my fundamental human rights and freedoms are being violated. I am being forced into an association that I did/do not consent to and to servitude that is violation of my human rights.

Paragraph 11 provides as follows, and I quote:

The ticket issued by Enforcement Officer Number 135253 on September 2nd, 2016, is of no force or effect. It is a violation of my rights. It makes ridiculous claims and needs to be withdrawn. This ticket is asking that I pay $276 dollars (sic). A request that forces me into servitude. Ironically, while I was acting in the servitude for…

and then the name of the defendant's employer appears.

[48] Crown says that there is no evidence to support Mr. White's suggestion that he is or should be exempt from holding a driver's licence.

[49] The defendant's argument is described by Crown as an example of “expanded thinking,” but the concepts of the defendant included within that expanded thinking do not provide Mr. White with a defence to the violation ticket under s.24 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

[50] Crown says that there is no right to drive but rather it is a privilege. That privilege is governed by a necessary regulatory scheme that avoids chaos and provides the public and persons driving on public road ways (including Mr. White) with safety.

[51] Crown specifically relies upon the Ontario Court of Justice Decision in R. v. Westover, supra. Westover involved a case where the accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle with no license contrary to s. 31 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act and driving a motor vehicle with no validation sticker on the motor vehicle’s license plate. As I understand it, the accused based his defence on various religious and secular beliefs.

[52] At paragraph 41, the court in Westover concluded as follows:

[41] For the reasons set out in Bothwell, Meads v. Meads, and R. v. Rosemarie Westover (at all levels), it is abundantly clear that regulation of the highways in Ontario is a necessary function of government and any infringement of rights and freedoms, including freedom of religion, association or movement that may occur with respect to same, are justifiable in a free and democratic society under section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, even if the appellant had a sincere religious belief that he should not abide by the rules and regulations related to motor vehicles and highways, he is not exempt from same.

Case Authorities Relied Upon by Defence:

[53] Mr. White relies upon the case of Re Lavigne and Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al., 1986 CanLII 2629 (ON SC), [1986] O.J. No. 659, a decision of the Ontario High Court of Justice.

Defence's Position:

[54] Mr. White says that his defence is based upon his right of freedom of association or the alternative, negative right being the right not to associate as is described in Re Lavigne.

[55] Mr. White says that the limitations set out in section 1 of the Charter are not applicable and says that roads are “less safe” if he is forced to associate with the government, as represented by the Crown, or with ICBC.

[56] Because the driver's licence is not his property, it places unreasonable restrictions on him when he has to renew it and pay for it every 5 years.

[57] Mr. White says driving is not a privilege but rather he should be able to move about freely. He further says that he is not a free person when he is driving in a motor vehicle and is required to hold a driver's licence. He contrasts that situation with skateboarders who are not so regulated and continue to enjoy the ability to move about freely.

[58] He argues that all of this places him in servitude which he says is defined in Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition as:

The condition of being bound to service, the state of a person who is subjected, voluntarily or otherwise, to another person as his servant to service.

[59] Mr. White says he detests servitude and it violates his rights.

[60] He argues that s. 24(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act is not consistent with the Constitution of Canada and thus he can rely upon s. 52 of the Charter to have it declared of no force or effect.

[61] He agrees that the relief he is seeking is as set out in his Notice and as is described above.

ANALYSIS:

[62] Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Meads, starting at paragraph 172, deals with the “freeman on the land" movement and then makes the following observations at paragraph 174:

[174] Stated simply, Freemen-on-the-Land believe they can ‘opt out’ of societal obligations and do as they like: Harper v. Atchison, 2011 SKQB 38 (CanLII) at paras. 6, 15, 369 Sask. R. 134; R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSCA 58(CanLII) at paras. 19, 21; R. v. McCormick, 2012 NSSC 288 (CanLII) at paras. 28-32. A common theme in Freeman arguments is that state and court action requires the target’s consent, for example: Jabez Financial Services Inc. (Receiver of) v. Sponagle, 2008 NSSC 112 (CanLII) at para. 14, 264 N.S.R. (2d) 224.

[63] At paragraphs 307 to 321 of Meads, Associate Chief Justice Rooke deals with OPCA Litigant arguments of belonging to an exempt group and being able to declare “myself immune."

[64] Specifically at paragraphs 315 and 316, the court says as follows:

[315] Obligation to adhere to motor vehicle licensing, registration, and insurance seems to have spawned considerable OPCA litigant activity. One apparently common argument is that the OPCA litigant is not subject to those requirements because that legislation only applies to either commercial vehicles (Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740 (CanLII) at paras. 35-38, affirmed 2011 ONCJ 842, affirmed [2011] O.J. No. 6282 (QL) (Ont. C.A.)), or vehicles operated by corporations (R. v. Kaasgaard, 2011 MBQB 256 (CanLII) at paras. 8-9).

[316] Similarly, courts have rejected arguments that a “driver” in motor vehicle legislation is restricted to obsolete interpretations of that definition: persons who direct horse-drawn vehicles, or persons whose profession involves moving livestock (Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740 ... at paras. 39-46, affirmed 2011 ONCJ 842, affirmed [2011] O.J. No. 6282 (QL) (Ont. C.A.)). This case reports the quite common OPCA litigant strategy of only citing historic rather than current references: para. 39. The failure of this and related arguments was summarized by Justice Stinson in this manner at para. 56:

It may well be the defendant's wish not to be governed by the HTA, or any other statute, for that matter. It may offend her personal beliefs, which she is obviously entitled to ... But, if she does not wish to be subject to the HTA, the solution is quite clear. She simply need not drive. The HTA, whether the defendant likes it or not, governs her conduct when she is the driver of a vehicle on a highway in the Province of Ontario. [Emphasis added.]

[65] Mr. White denies that he subscribes to the “freeman” theories. He denies that he is OPCA Litigant.

[66] Having carefully reviewed Meads and having carefully reviewed Mr. White’s arguments and his materials, I have concluded as follows:

1. He displays several OPCA indicia, as reviewed and summarized by Meads.

2. His arguments rely on a recast of OPCA theories of immunity based upon his notion of servitude.

[67] It would be a mistake for Mr. White to interpret from Meads that OPCA Litigants are a homogeneous group. That is clearly not the case. A person may embrace certain aspects of certain theories and display certain OPCA indicia. One does not have to embrace all OPCA Litigant theories or all their indicia to intentionally or unintentionally wander into the jungle of tortured reasoning and unconvincing thoughts that infect OPCA Litigants.

[68] I agree with the submissions of Crown with respect to the defence raised by Mr. White and the necessity of there being a statutory regime for driving on public highways in British Columbia.

[69] I start from the premise that driving on a highway in British Columbia is a highly regulated privilege and it is not a right, whether that be a statutory right or some other form of right that is being propounded by Mr. White.

[70] Mr. White is not exempt from compliance with the Motor Vehicle Act. He may exercise his right of choice and not drive a motor vehicle in circumstances where a subsisting driver's licence is required by the Motor Vehicle Act. The circumstances giving rise to the issuance of the violation ticket were not circumstances where Mr. White was either exempt from having a subsisting driver's licence or where he could exercise a choice of not associating with ICBC or, for that matter, with the Crown.

[71] I accept as a correct statement of the law, the passage set out in paragraph 41 of Westover, and I accept the reasoning in Westover, and conclude that it also applies to the Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia and its regulations and its application is a justifiable restriction on any rights of British Columbia citizens including, without limitation, Mr. White.

CONCLUSION:

[72] In conclusion, based upon all of the above, I find that the Crown has proven the offence set out in the violation ticket issued to Mr. White, and I find him guilty of the offence under s 24(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, as alleged. I reject Mr. White’s defences as not having any legal foundation or merit.

[73] That concludes my reasons.