GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
RE: THE CONVICTION OF DAVID ARTHUR JOHNSTON AND DAVID MICHAEL SHEBIB OF MULTIPLE ‘HAVING A TEMPORARY ABODE AFTER 7:00 AM’ BYLAW TICKETS
[1] Judge Blake’s findings and the circumstances leading to the trial suggest an already set prejudgment with bias.
[2] Evidence of that can be found in Judge Blake’s Reasons for Judgment half way down para. 7 where it states,
“Unfortunately, this afternoon I
have chosen not to give myself the luxury of a lengthy period of reserve time
for contemplation as Madam Justice Ross did in
The suggestion of Supreme Court Justice Ross acting frivolously denotes contempt from Judge Blake towards, in the least, Judge Ross herself if not her judgment in the R. v. Adams, case as well, or even the BC Supreme Court as a whole.
[3] In para. 10 of the Reasons Judge Blake suggests he is
going to risk doing violence to the
[4] When Judge Blake suggests in para. 36 of the Reasons that
“The weakness of the defendants' position, it seems to me, is the essential failure to recognize that in any community there must be accommodation, compromise.”
he is making a s. 1 claim that is not supported by the Principles of Fundamental Justice unless he can make evident, specifically, what crime is being committed by having a tent between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. The compromise asked is to accept a deprivation of life on a portion of the population in the name of ascetics, a mindset that is backed by a grand conspiracy with roots in the City, the Provincial Court (paras. 24-25 in the Reasons brings question to Judge Blake's fellow Provincial Court Judge, Judge Mackenzie, who, through giving his 'opinion' effectively gave ammo to potential further litigation and to the directing of public opinion) and the Crown. The conspiracy is made evident, simply, through the naïve assertion that it is alright to have an ‘across-the-board’ prohibition against sleeping, impliciter, during the day- a basic and clear affront to common sense AND a contempt of the Rule of Law and Madam Justice Ross’ ruling in-particular. The Crown is included, partly, because of Judge Blake’s admission at the end of para. 29 where he states,
“The Charter issue is already well known to the Crown, and this trial was deliberately set quickly with the Crown’s consent.”
[5] In para. 28 of the Reasons, Judge Blake states
“Strictly speaking, the decision the court is now required to make involves further consideration of s. 7 of the Charter of Rights.”
He did not further consider.
[6] In para. 34 Judge Blake states
“There is no evidence before me that there is an unavailability of indoor locations to sleep during the daytime.”
He is in err. The Ross ruling contains evidence from the
Mayor's Taskforce (paras. 41-44
[7] In para. 30 of the Reasons Judge Blake further goes on to show his contempt of the defendants through presuming that
“It would be a triumph of form over substance to require the defendants to give notice of Charter application,…”.
Along with the misdirection of para. 9 where it claims I was making a Charter argument when I explained that the City was in contempt of Judge Ross’ ruling and they were not saved by s. 1 of the Charter. I suspect there is an attempt to divert this appeal into a Charter argument so as to 'tie it up'.
[8] It has always been agreed upon that the City has had many options in the managing of its public spaces that could still be in accordance with the BC Supreme Court ruling, that need even not lead to tent-cities, which seems to be the primary apprehension the City has about letting people have the right to erect shelters. The point is this- Justice Ross says in para. 237 of her ruling that
“the course that is most appropriate is to grant a declaration that the Bylaws are of no force and effect insofar as they apply to prevent homeless people from erecting temporary shelter.”
and the City, and now the
[9] Keeping in spirit with bringing forth the grounds for appeal I will not reargue the entire case here.