Walsh v. Attorney General, Minister of Finance, Minister of Municipal Affairs

By Pedlar, J
Ontario Superior Court
Apr 09, 2018

CITATION:  Walsh v. Attorney General of Canada, et al, 2018 ONSC 2251

 COURT FILE NO.:  CV18-0001 (Perth)

DATE:  April 6, 2018  

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

 

 

RE:                 SHIRLEY WALSH V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, MINISTER OF FINANCE AND MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

 

 

BEFORE:      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. PEDLAR

 

COUNSEL:   Shirley Walsh, Application, self-represented

                                    Adrian Johnston, for the Respondents, Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Finance;

                                    Ravi Amarnath, for the Respondents, Attorney General of Ontario and Minister of Municipal Affairs

 

                                   

HEARD:         By written submissions

 

 

 

E N D O R S E M E N T

 

 

[1]            The Applicant, Shirley Walsh, brings this action by way of Notice of Application issued January 8, 2018 at Perth, Ontario.  The Respondents have applied for an order under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing the proceeding as, on its face, frivolous, vexatious and otherwise an abuse of process of this court.

[2]          This court has now fully reviewed the application as well as the written submissions of the Applicant, served and filed pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(3), and the requests by the Respondents for this order.  By order of this court dated February 9, 2018, the application is stayed pending a further ruling by this court.

[3]          The relief sought by the Applicant is spelled out at page 50 of her application, beginning at paragraph 51 through to paragraph 60 on page 52, which reads as follows:

51)      Accordingly, I am seeking a declaratory order that certain sections of offending statutes violate my right to choose under s.7 of the Charterand international covenants as follows:

a)         Ontario Business Corporations Act articles 6, 167, 1.2, 115, 133 and 1.1 definitions.

b)         Income tax Act articles 2.1, 248.1 definitions, 153.1, 227.1(1) and 237.1.

c)         Excise Tax Act articles 4.3122 and 123.1.

d)         Ontario Municipal Act articles 1.1 definitions, 4.1, 225, 5, 203, 425, 429.1 and 8.3.

e)         Land Titles Act articles 314445 and 46.

52)      The order I seek would stipulate that these sections are of no force or effect against me only, per s.52(1) of the Constitution.  As a result, the rest of these enactments cannot be enforced against me and have been invalid against me since they were first enacted (Canada v. Sam Levy & Assoc. 2005).  As a consequence of my rights having been violated, I am made whole as if the trespass never happened including restoration of my rights and natural wealth and resources.

6-Constititution Act, 1982

52.(1)  The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

 

6-Canada (Attorney General) v. Sam Levy et Associes Inc. 2005 FC 171 (CanLII)

The invalidity of a legislative provision inconsistent with the Charter does not arise from the fact of its being declared unconstitutional by a court, but from the operation of s.52(1).  Thus, in principle, such a provision is invalid from the moment it is enacted, and a judicial declaration to this effect is but one remedy amongst others to protect those whom it adversely affects.  In that sense, by virtue of s.52(1), the question of constitutional validity inheres in every legislative enactment.  Courts may not apply invalid laws, and the same obligation applies to every level and branch of government, including the administrative organs of the state.

 

53)      I am reimbursed for income taxes assessed over my working life including taxes paid plus appropriate interest as defined by the Bank of Canada, reflecting loss of use of those funds over the period, and which I calculate to be in the amount of $2,500,000.00.

54)      I am reimbursed for consumption taxes paid since the inception of the GST in 1991 including taxes paid plus appropriate interest as defined by the Bank of Canada, reflecting loss of use of those funds over the period, and which I calculate to be in the amount of $600,000.00.

55)      I am reimbursed for property taxes back to 1982 on current and past properties owned in Ontario including taxes paid plus appropriate interest as defined by the Bank of Canada, reflecting loss of use of those funds over the period, and which I calculate to be in the amount of $100,000.00.

56)      As a result of the tort committed against me wherein, first the respective Ministers and, subsequently, the corresponding Attorneys General refusal to protect my rights as was their duty, tort damages in the amount of 25% be added to the total of the principle sums above and which I calculate to be an additional $800,000.00 bringing the overall total to $4,000.000.00.

57)      I have no further liability going forward for federal, provincial or municipal taxes or other charges or assessments.  That my name is permanently removed from the tax rolls and files of the Canada Revenue Agency and my name and property are removed from the municipal tax rolls and from MPAC and the contrary is expressed on the register regarding liabilities.

58)      I am entitled to consolidate my registered and business investment accounts, which were only established in the first place to minimize tax, into a personal account with no adverse tax consequences.

59)      I am registered as first registered owners with absolute title of my property located in, Ontario.  In addition, the register is rectified in respect of my property removing all liabilities including, but not limited to, provincial and municipal taxes, rates and assessments, school and water rates, rights of way and easements, right of expropriation or access, planning and zoning regulations and other municipal by-laws.  Furthermore, any property which I may acquire in the future in Ontario is similarly registered to me with absolute title and free of all liabilities on the register.

60)      In accordance with ICESCR articles 11 and 12 and UDHR article 25, I continue to access services provided by the government of Canada or any province as required without the creation of joinder or the erosion of my full legal capacity.  This includes, but is not limited to, medical care, licences, permits or other authorizations (ie- drivers licence, licence plates, passports, etc.) necessary to benignly co-exist alongside the juristic federal unit Canada.  In addition, an appropriate mechanism is established for ongoing reimbursement (quarterly or annually) of consumption taxes, licences, fees, permits or other authorizations collected, so that the apparent integrity of the system may be maintained.

[4]          In reviewing the application itself, it is, on its face, frivolous and vexatious.  The application relies on various legal principles cherry-picked from legislation and reported cases and attempts to put them together in a manner that I find to be unreasonable, inconsistent, contradictory, and fails to justify any of the relief sought, as set out above.

[5]          The Applicant continues to attempt to rely on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms while ignoring Section 1 of that 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”.

[6]          The “rights and freedoms” claimed by the Applicant are unreasonable and lack any insight into the shared responsibilities associated with the rule of law.  There is simply no demonstrable basis for the relief sought by the Applicant herein.  The limiting of the so-called “rights and freedoms” claimed by the applicant is reasonable by dismissing this action as frivolous and vexatious pursuant to the above noted rules of practice of this court.  That dismissal is also demonstrably justified in the context of a free and democratic society.

[7]          This application is accordingly dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.  As the Respondents have not been required to file any formal documentation in response to this application, there shall be no order as to costs.

 

____________________________________

Mr. Justice Kenneth E. Pedlar

DATE:             April 6, 2018