In R. v. Viau, 2022 ONSC 5825 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with yet another OPCA claim.
The judgment states
[4] This was a challenging case for the trial court when it came up on April 12, 2021. The appellant was self-represented and presented as an OPCA litigant. Right from the start of the case he refused to answer simple procedural questions or engage with standard courtroom ritual.
[5] When the trial judge asked the appellant if he was ready for his trial, the appellant claimed that he was the victim of “trespass by way of robbery.” He claimed to be accused of “owing a debt” and that he and his property were being held “as ransom.” The trial judge repeated his question and was met with a farrago of legalese, and a claim of entitlement to a trial by jury, to which the trial judge responded that he was not entitled to one. This led to the following exchange: THE COURT: It is a summary conviction offence. [THE APPELLANT]: I don’t give a s***. I’m entitled to a trial by jury.
[6] The appellant talked while the trial judge spoke and the trial judge warned the appellant that he was going to have the appellant removed and proceed in his absence if he continued to interrupt. While the trial judge directed the clerk to arraign the appellant, the appellant continued to interrupt. When the clerk began to arraign, and stated the appellant’s name and date of birth, the appellant responded: “I don’t know my date of birth, I was pretty young at the time that I was born. My date of birth is hearsay information.”
[7] The trial judge at that point ordered the appellant removed pursuant to s. 650 of the Criminal Code “because he is misconducting himself and interrupting the proceedings so that to continue in his presence would not be feasible.” As he was required to do by s. 606(2) of the Criminal Code, the trial judge entered a plea of not guilty on the appellant’s behalf, at which point the appellant, who had not yet been removed, accused the trial judge of “practicing law from the bench.”
[8] Briefly, the charge before the court involved an allegation that the accused had failed to re-attend court in the Superior Court of Justice on November 13, 2019. After arraignment, the Crown introduced into evidence a certificate of non-attendance, a transcript of the proceedings from the set date on October 4, 2019, and notices that were served on the appellant of the Crown’s intention to adduce those items into evidence at trial. The Crown explained that the transcript contained utterances from the appellant that he had made on the set date, to be used for their “truth” and for the Crown’s use “if [the appellant] was going to take the stand in his own defence.” The trial judge noted in response, “that doesn’t appear that that’s going to happen…[b]ut I will invite him to do so if he wishes to do so.”
[9] As the transcript of proceedings of October 4, 2019 makes clear, on that date the appellant had been similarly obstructive. He had offered pseudo-legal statements and argument and he told the presiding justice that he would not re-attend court on the return date that was set, November 13, 2019. All the while, the appellant continued to ignore the presiding judge and talk over him.
[10] After the Crown had filed the written material at the appellant’s trial, he suggested that the appellant be brought back into court “to see if he’s changed his mind at all at this stage” since he had had a “few minutes of cooling”. On the appellant’s return to court, the trial judge explained that the clerk had arraigned the appellant and the trial judge had registered a plea of not guilty on the appellant’s behalf in his absence. The appellant then continued in the same vein as earlier in the proceeding: that the judge could not practice law from the bench, that “guilt” means “debt” in German, and that the appellant should be presented with a bill so that he could pay his “debt”. The trial judge again had the appellant removed, as he was being disruptive, disrespectful, and interfering with the proceedings.
[11] After that, the Crown called as a witness a court officer from the North Bay courthouse, who identified the appellant and gave evidence about his attendance on October 4, 2019 and his non-attendance on November 13, 2019. The Crown closed its case, and the trial judge immediately proceeded to give his reasons.
[12] The trial judge first explained that he was aware that the appellant has the right to make full answer and defence but given the appellant’s behaviour in court on two occasions, “I am satisfied that that is beyond his focus today.” He made reference to aspects of the appellant’s conduct. The trial judge then referred to s. 650(2)(a) of the Criminal Code and explained that he had acted in accordance with it. The trial judge continued that when the appellant was recalled, “he simply refused to acknowledge anything that I said.” The trial judge then scrupulously reviewed the evidence offered by the Crown and found the appellant guilty of the charge.
[13] After the finding of guilt, the Crown made sentencing submissions, in the appellant’s absence. The appellant was brought back into court and conducted himself as he had earlier. When the trial judge referred to him as “Mr. Viau”, the appellant denied being a “mister”; he was a “man”. The court then explained to him, “Okay, man. We have now completed the Crown’s case.” The appellant then spoke about being presented with a bill so that he could pay his debt. The trial judge continued: “I’m at the point where I found you guilty and I have to sentence you…. I want to know if you want to say anything with respect to sentence?” The appellant responded that “I don’t consent to any of this” and then continued into pseudo-legalese. The trial judge imposed the sentence that the Crown had proposed in the appellant’s absence.
[14] At this point, the appellant asked, “Where was my fair trial in an impartial and independent tribunal?” The trial judge briefly spoke of his reasons for excluding the appellant from the courtroom, and the appellant claimed that the court was “a British private court.” Invoking the “Constitution”, the appellant asserted that he had been denied an “independent or impartial tribunal”.
Grounds of appeal
[15] The Notice of Appeal is consistent with the appellant’s presentation at trial. In answer to the question on the form, “Plea at trial”, the appellant wrote a response: “no plea was entered by the man known as Joel.”
[16] Listed among the grounds are many that are familiar from this and other OPCA litigants, such as, among others:
“1. Failure to provide subject matter jurisdiction….
2. Interfered with International Human Rights Documents….
4. Failure to provide a sworn affidavit in support of the claims made against me as a man….
6. No valid contract between the Corporation of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and the Corporation of JOEL RAYMOND VIAU….
12. Invocation of Article 61 of the Magna Carta in 2001…
19. The Crown templar prosecutor abandoned the rule of law by creating and continuing a conflict….
22. There had been aggreement [sic] of the parties by tacit acquiesce [sic].”
It is not my intention to comment on these grounds, as they are frivolous OPCA nonsense.
[17] Some grounds could perhaps be construed as legitimate grounds, even if poorly or contemptuously worded:
“14. Interference with my rights as a man to an independent court of record where all parties swear to tell the truth….
16. Fraud on the court by the judge….”
It is not my intention to tease meaning into these grounds, as it is unnecessary to do so given other legitimate concerns raised by the appellant.
[18] Those legitimate concerns relate to the appellant’s exclusion from court during his trial, and to the court’s failure to give him the opportunity to make full answer and defence. While the respondent submits in its factum that s. 650 of the Criminal Code was not directly raised by the appellant, I believe that a court must take a more expansive view of the appellant’s grounds, as he continues to represent himself and should not be deprived of his opportunity to seek appellate redress. I view the following listed grounds as engaging that provision of the Criminal Code:
3. Judge/administrative clerk interfered with Rights protected by the Constitution
10. Interferance [sic] with my right to face my accuser
13. Interferance [sic] with my rights as a man to a fair trial
15. Interference with my rights as a man to have all the guarantees for my defense [sic]
