In Butterfield v. LeBlanc et al, 2007 BCSC 235 states
[7] Mr. Butterfield claims that, due to the way punctuation is used in statutes, all governments are corporations. He also claims that Canada does not exist as a federal nation and that the provinces are independent nations. The thrust of the arguments is that the prosecution of him was unlawful, and he should be compensated.
[8] Much of Mr. Butterfield’s argument is based on the use of grammar that he says leads to a number of conclusions, including that governments are corporations and do not have the authority to pass laws. For example, paragraph 3 of his Statement of Claim is as follows:
This Statement of Claim, is based upon legal definitions provided in “Statutory” instruments; certain internal “governmental” documents; a publication from the Translation Bureau as a special operating agency of the Department of Public Works and Government Services “Canada”; research results provided by individuals working with Justice “Canada” including Ed Hicks, Counsel, Legislative Services Branch of Justice Canada; Canadian Law Dictionary; Legal Maxims; Hansard from House of Commons Debates; and documentary evidence produced either by “government” or by former “government” employees/officers ; or grammar and/or language usage authorities and does not rely upon belief, theory or opinion.
[9] I quote from para. 31 of his Statement of Claim to illustrate part of the substance of his claim:
That evidence will show the real provinces are not “a part of Canada”, and are independent nations as established by the Statute of Westminster 1931. Definitions provided for the term “province” by both the Federal and Provincial “Interpretation Act” includes only the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory and Nunavat, and expressly excludes any geographic area known on the street as a province. i.e. Alberta, British Columbia, etc.
[10] Mr Butterfield claims that there was a conspiracy against him by the defendants, who are among the conspirators. Paragraph 43 of his Statement of Claim sets this out:
That by 1998-1999, the conspiracy had gained new partners in their wrongdoings with the “Department of Justice” and followed shortly thereafter by the “Province of British Columbia Ministry of Health”. The Complainant [Mr. Butterfield], was then made victim of their “selective prosecutions” and labelled as a “Tax Protestor/Anti-government”. The Complainant is neither a “Tax Protestor” nor “Anti-government”. The evidence will show that the Complainant is only concerned with the welfare of the people and their country, and other than being compensated for the fraud and human rights violations he has suffered, desires only to cause creation of lawful governments capable of creating public laws, and to serve the people.
[11] Mr. Butterfield claims, at para. 46 of his Statement of Claim, that he was defamed by the defendants and that they maliciously violated his human rights by unlawfully taking part in the prosecution against him.
[12] The above sets out the basics of Mr. Butterfield’s claim, although it is 59 paragraphs in total. ....
[15] I will first address briefly Mr. Butterfield’s contention that governments are corporations. Although Mr. Butterfield commenced with a premise and then carried his argument somewhat logically from that premise, the main flaw in his argument on this aspect of his pleadings is that his premise is flawed.
[16] Mr. Butterfield commenced his argument by relying on The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing. This literary guide is published by Dundurn Press Limited “in co-operation with Public Works and Government Services Canada Translation Bureau”. Mr. Butterfield relies on 4.21(c) which states: 4.21 Geographic Terms (c) Do not capitalize a generic term such as city, county, state or province when it precedes the proper noun or stands alone, unless it is used in a corporate sense:
[17] Mr. Butterfield’s argument equates the word “corporate” with the word “corporation” and he limits the word corporation to mean that related to business. His argument is that since certain words, such as Province and City, are capitalized, then they must be corporations, not government entities. The word “corporate”, however, refers to forming a body politic, which can include, for example, a town with municipal rights. Indeed a corporation can be created by an act of the legislature to form towns.
[18] Mr. Butterfield overlooks the examples provided in the writing guide that he relies on where the corporate use of the word includes “Buy Province of Ontario bonds”.
[19] Thus, the claims the plaintiff makes with respect to conclusions flowing from his misinterpretation of grammar fall under Rule 19(24) (a)-(d) inclusive.
[20] The next primary part of his pleadings relates to his interpretation of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 and his conclusion that there is no such thing as Canada, as well as other legislation which I will turn to momentarily.
[21] Mr. Butterfield bases his arguments on the debate in the legislature. The date is not clear, but it appears to be 1945. It is a speech given in Parliament by Walter Kuhl, a member from Jasper-Edson Alberta between 1935-1949. He represented the Social Credit Party and later the New Democracy party, then returned to the Social Credit party. Also submitted by the plaintiff are writings of Mr. Kuhl and others on the issue that Canada is not properly constituted as a country. From this “fact”, the plaintiff argues that therefore Canada cannot pass laws which are binding on people who live (as he says) in the independent provinces, including the Income Tax Act.
[22] Mr. Kuhl argued that The British North America Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c.3, did not make Canada a federal union. Canada did become a federal state under the Act, but not a sovereign state. The Parliament of the United Kingdom still had the ability to pass laws that were in force in Canada. The passage of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 (U.K.), 22 & 23 Geo. V, c. 4, abolished the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865 (U.K.), 28 & 29 Vict., c. 63, which had permitted the British Parliament to pass laws affecting the then Dominion of Canada. Mr. Kuhl argued, as does the plaintiff, that because the Provinces did not enter into an agreement at this time to form a federation, that none exists.
[23] At the time of Confederation, several provinces formed the new Dominion of Canada. As time passed, eventually all the provinces joined, the last being Newfoundland in 1949. There was no need for a new agreement to be entered into in 1931. The Statute of Westminster gave sole authority to the Canadian government to pass its own laws, as authorized under the BNA Act, removing the power from the United Kingdom Parliament, save and except regarding amendments to the BNA Act itself.
[24] The Statute of Westminster did not permit the amendment by the Canadian Parliament of the British North America Act. This could only be done by the British Parliament. It was the convention not to amend the BNA Act without a request from and the consent of Canada. However, Mr. Kuhl continued with his arguments, and indeed published a booklet called Canada: A Country Without a Constitution.
[25] There are a number of flaws in the argument of Mr. Kuhl, adopted by the plaintiff, some of which are noted above. However, the short answer is found in 1982, when Canada patriated its constitution as a result of the Constitution Act 1982 which is Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), 1982 c. 11. As of 1982, Canada was a country with its own constitution and if there was any substance to the suggestion that Canada did not have the ability to legislate, (which there clearly is not), then the foundation for the argument crumbled in 1982.
