Exhibits “G” through “Q”

Exposing the Tyranny and Oppression

Implemented through the
current and disreputable
Administration of Justice
in Canada
at the heart of the matter on file no. 81581 with the
superior court (British Columbia - Kelowna)
 t&' LOR.tf OF ;,rrvraglLrzils
A{+*.J^wu.*.'tsq
Fv;d,a.r.cz. P^zli5*s .

CANADIAN CI{ARTER OF RIGHTS ANT)

FREEDOMS
Being PartI of the ConstitttlionAct, 1982

fEnactedby the CanadaAct 1982[U.K.] c.l l; proclaimedin forceApril 17,1982.Amendedby

the ConstitutionAmendmentProclamation. 1983,SI/84-102,effectiveJune27,1984.Amended
by the ConstitutionAmendment, 1993[New Brunswick], SI/93-54,Can. Gaz.Part II, Aprll7 ,
1993,effectiveMarch 12^1993.]

WhereasCanadais foundedupon principlesthat recognizethe supremacyof God and the rule of

law:

R I G T { T S A N D t r R t r F ' f i O M SI N C A N A D A

guaranteesthe rights and fieedoms set out in it

1. The CcrnadicrnCharter of Righls uncl F-reedon?^r
subjectonly to suchreasonable
limits prescribedby law as can be in a free
and democraticsociety.

Fnndamenfal Freedoms

F'ITNNAMFNTAI F'Rtrtrf}OMs

2.Everyonehasthe fbllou'ing fundamentalfieedoms:

(a)freedonrof conscience
and religion:

(b)fieedomof thought,belief.opinionand expression,includingfreedomof the press

and othermediaof communication:

(c)fieedomof peacefulassembly;and n
Thisis ExhibirW" ,rfrrrrd to in rhe
(d)freedomof association. a.ffidavitolf r{ \{ra.\S
sworn beforeme at fNEF-\ f{t\.q,$,.}nG..
in the Province oJ'British Colunbia,
thl llrdal<7'ffgJ. rf 2oS5 -
A
l2nnlissloner for -tak,ng AlJidavit,
within the Provinie of Bntiih Cilumbia
Dtr'N/r)CR ATIC RI(-}H'|S (-)I.-(-ITTTtrNS

3. Every citizenof Canadahasthe right to vote in an electionof membersof the House of

Commonsor of a legislativeassemblyand to be qualified for membershiptherein.

M nhilit y Rig h tq

M O R I T T T Y R I G H T S O F C I T T ' - t r ' N S / R i o h t t r - rn r n v e a n d g a i n l i v e l i h o o d / I i m i t a t i n n /
Affi rmativeaction programs.

6. (1) Every citizen of Canadahasthe right to enter.remainin and leaveCanada.

(2) Every citizen of Canadaand everypersonwho hasthe statusof a pennanentresidentof

Canadahasthe riqht

(a) to move to ar-rdtake up residencein any province;and

(b) to pursuethe gainingof a livelihoodin any province.

(3) The rightsspecifiedin subsection(2) aresubiectto

(a) any lawsor practicesof generalapplicationin force in a provinceotherthanthose

that discriminateamongpersonsprimarilyon the basisof provinceof presentor
previousresidence, and

(b) any lawsprovidingfbr reasonable as a qualificationfbr the

residencyrequirements
receiptof publiclyprovidedsocialservices.

(4) Subsections(2) and (3) do not precludeany law, programor activitythat hasas its objectthe
ameliorationin a provinceof conditionsof individualsin that provincewho weresociallyor
economicallydisadvantaged if the rateof employmentin that provinceis below the rateof
employmentin Canada.
r , I F F , r I R F R T \ / A N n S F C I I R I T VC } FP F . R S O N

7. Everyonehas the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
deprived thereof exceptin accordancewith the principles of fundamentaljustice.

qtrI tr-tNIT-P II\/I}-TA TIf)I\I

in any proceedings
13. A witnesswho testif-res hasthe right not to haveany incriminating
evidenceso given usedto incriminatethat witness in any otherproceedings, exceptin a
prosecutionfor perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

F,n fnreern enf

FNFORCF-MFNT OF GI IAR ANTFFD R T G H T S A N f i F ' R F ' t r f i O M S / t r x r - l r r s i o nn f e r z i d e n c e

bringingadministration
ofjustice into disrepute.

24. (l) Anyone whoserights or freedoms,as guaranteedby this Charter, have been
infringed or denied may apply to a court of competentjurisdiction to obtain such remedy
as the court considersappropriate and just in the circumstances.

(2) Where,in proceedings undersubsection ( 1), a courl concludesthat evidencewas obtainedin

a mannerthat infiinged or deniedany rights or freedomsguaranteedby this Charter,the evidence
that.havingregardto all the circumstances,
shallbe excludedif it is established the admissionof
it in the proceedings
wolrld bring the adrninistration ofjustice into disrepute.

General

A R O R I G I N A TR T G } I T SA N D F ' R F I T D O MNSO T A F F t r C T F NR Y C H A R T F ' R

in this Charterof certainrightsand fieedomsshallnot be construedso as to

25. The guarantee
abrogateor derogatefiom any aboriginal,treatyor other rights or freedomsthat pertainto the
aboriginalpeopleof Canadaincluding

(a) any rightsor freedomsthat havebeenrecognizedby the RoyalProclamationof

October7.1763:and
 or may be
(b) any rightsor freedomsthat now exist by way of land claimsagreements
so acquired.

OTHFR RIGHTSAND FRFtrNOMSNOT AFF'trCTFfiRY CHARTtrR

26.The guarantee in this Charterof certainrightsand freedomsshallnot be construedas denying

the existenceof anv otherrishts or freedomsthat exist in Canada.

AND TtrRRIT'ORIAIAI J]-HORITTtrS

APPITCATIONTO TF'RRITORTI.'S

30. A referencein this Charterto a provinceor to the legislativeassemblyor legislatureof a

provinceshall be deemedto includea refbrenceto the Yukon Territory and the Northwest
Territories.or to the appropriatelegislativeauthoritythereof,as the casemay be.

T trGTST
ATTVI.-POWFRSNOT I]YTFNDFT-)

31. Nothing in this Charterextendsthe legislativepowersof any body or authority.

APPI TCATION OIr THF CHART'trR / Fxcention

32. (l) This Charterapplies

(a) to the Parliamentand governmentof Canadain respectof all matterswithin the

authorityof Parliamentincludingall mattersrelatingto the Yukon Territoryand
Northwest'ferritories;and

(b) to the legislatureand governmentof eachprovincein respectof all matterswithin

the authorityof the legislatureof eachprovince.

(2) Notrn,ithstanding
subsection(1), sectionl5 shallnot haveeffectuntil threeyearsafterthis
sectioncomesinto force.[Section 32 cameinto fbrceon April 17, 1982;therefore,section15
hadeffecton April 17,7985.1

F V Ct r P T T O N WH trR tr F ' VP R F S S fi F ' CI R TION / Ofrerati nn nf excepfi nn / tri ve yeqr

/ Five yearlimitation.
limitation/ Re-enactment

33. (1) Parliamentor the legislatureof a provincemay expresslydeclarein an Act of Parliament

as the casemay be, thatthe Act or a provisionthereofshalloperate
or of the legislature,
notwithstanding a provisionincludedin section2 or sections7 to 15 of this Charter.
(2) An Act or a provisionof an Act in respectof which a declarationmadeunderthis sectionis in
effect shalthave suchoperationas it would havebut for the provisionof this Charterreferredto
in the declaration.

(3) A declarationmadeundersubsection( 1) shall ceaseto haveeff-ectfive yearsafter it comes

into forceor on suchearlierdateas may be specifredin the declaration.

(4) Parliamentor the legislatureof a provincemay re-enacta declarationmadeundersubsection

(l).

(4).
madeundersubsection
(5) Subsection(3) appliesin respectof a re-enactment

Citqfinn

CIT A TTr)NI

34. This Partmav be citedas the CanadianCharterof Riehtsand Freedoms.

 UndeniableProof
That GovernmentsWithin Canada
Of
HaveNEVER ljsed The Standards
rh"ffi';:g#ln:H{::H:m
And
Are lJnlawfully lJsing Laws That
OLITRIGHTContradictTheseStandards
Which ThenForcesEveryone
To StandIJp For Everyone'sLegal Rights
As AffirmedBy Fundamental Justice,I.E.
onal " Reverse Onu^s"Standard
The l-Jnconstituti
HasBeenl-InlawfullyImposedOn Everyone
WITHOUT Their Knowing
 CrN

Mr. E. I. Krass
,lust Cull Me - Gulileo II/F'oundero.l'theUni/ied Collegc d'Meclicine
PO BOX IO41STN MAIN
DAWSON CREEK BC V IG 4LI9

OctoberB.2008

To Everyone:
'fort
I By replacingunlawl-ullyAdministrativeLaw and certaintywith Law and conflicting

arenot.justchallengingthe authoritativevoices
claimswhetherlegitimateor not, the governments

them and urging thern on to rectify this injusticebut also the

Justicebackir-rg
with Ft,tnclctmentul

governments their lawsancJ

unilaterallydeclaredthemselves. orderandthebureaucratic
subsequent

decisionsas divinejust as in the daysof kings and queenslherebylegitimizingcreatingfictitious

alsoquietlydeclaredthat therewill
conllictswheretherereallycan be noneplus the governrncnts

be nothingmorethanthe currentlaws andtheir order.

2 The SCC in its October3. 2003decisionwrote:

"The Churter is not,\otneltoty Grail v,hich only iudiciul initiules d'the superior

lo thelteoplc. All luw und luw mukers

courts muy touch. TheChcrrtcrhelong,s

thut touch the peo-le must conform to it. Trihunul,sund contmi,s,sions

ure lf 0 EX('EPTIOI{. Muny more cilizen,shuve

churgedu,ithtlecidinglcgol issuc,s

by lhe,setribunul,s(andthe laws) thun by lhe courl,E.l/ The

their right,sdeterntinect

in the
people, lhen,il musl./indits cxpre,ssion
Churteris to be meuningfulto rtrdin(try)

decisionof lheselrihunuls(andthe laws/."

3 Basically.the SCC madeit clearthatthe entiredecisionprocessfiom beforethe production

of the law in its clrafiform must uphold the standard that the laws are establishedfrom Natural

,lustice^NOI- laws produce agendasand unnatural order that the

Orrler. aka F-unclumental

iuslifitthleas
governmentsor its backersdreamup: all laws and decisionsmust be clemonstrcthly
 Mr. E. J. Krass
,Iust Call Me - Galileo ll/Founclcr d the Uniliecl College d.Meclic'ina
PO BOX IO4I STN MAIN
DAWSON CRF,EK RC] VIG 4H9

or savedwith clemoc'rulic:
,Ju,stice
uplrolding theprincipleso/-Funclamental vntil suchtime
,s'ltrnclurd,s

,Iuslic'edeterminesthe soleoutcomefbr the matter.

as Ftmclttmentul

4 When the reality that laws are to be basedon nulurul orcler which only dispenses

Fttndamenlul,Iu5licefbr all and the current laws impose an uniust and unnaturalorder which

naturally arises from the supplantingof Administrative I-aw with Tort Law and arguments,an

within the currentcivilizationwhich was quietly

unlawfgl FIolyWar will ultirnatelybe discoverecl

AND. sadly.thisconsequence
and<leception
put in placewith dishonesty fiom nobodyactually
etrose

readilg the laws in orderto seekout suchdishonesty,corruptionand deceit- not the opposition

partiesnor the massmedia.

5 Eithereveryoneis devotedto everyonehavingthe right to equalityof beingas definedby

Mctnr]uteof-Heuvenandpurs'uinglhe corollury o.flav's

,Juslicethul ari,yes.fi"om'[he
Fundcrntentttl

thut extcntlfi.om TheChurtcr ol'RightsunclFreedomsor what you aredclingis u'ay beyondwrong,

theworldly orderin whichyou live is not.iustwithoutfbundation

it is groundsfbr revolutionbecause

andeveryoneelsc'srighttolifb,liherly
itiscontinuingwithcompletedisregardfbrHeavenandearth

unclsecttrily of'personos af/irnteclhy fiundumenfal,Iuslic:et

Without

E. .1.Krass
of theunifiedCollegeof Medicine
GalileoIllFounder

for theiob injureclacrossCanadawronglullydeniedtheir legitimateWCB benefits

Representative
 rred to in the
a.ffidavit
of
RoyChupa swornbeloremeat f.tf}5T rl
WGBClaimNo.: JC04532659 "\ss*r".
WCATDecisionNo.: wcAT-2006-03815
WCATDecisionDate: 6, 2006
October
,\J G-f^l-

March23,2007 A Commissioncrfor taking

The only questionsthat may be addressedat the first stage of a reconsiderationgoing

applicationis whetherthe vicechairwho issuedthe decisionmiOean errorof law
and material to the
or whetherthereis newevidencethat is substantial
to jurisdiction, jurisdictionmust
decision,For this reasonthe new evidenceor errorof law goingto to a
relateto eitherthe vice chair'sdetermination that Mr. Chupa is not entitled
gadolinium-enhanced MRI investigation or the vice chair'sdetermination that the
thg Review
workers,compensationBoard,operatingas worksafeBC(Board),and
to the lateral
Divisionof the Boardwas correctwhent6"y refusedto acceptan injury
ligamentcomplexof Mr. Chupa'srightetbow. lf Mr. Chupais successful at stageone
acceptedas
and two of the reconsideration frocess, and his claimed injury is can
compensable, the matterwill likelybe returnedto the Boardso that the Board
determine whatbenefits, if any,arisefromthe acceptedinjury'

tn respectof yourrequestfor the costof the

yourrequestfor the associated expenseat F
anduntila WCATpanelon reconsideration,
portionof the originalWCAT (eoerrsq
reconsiderationof thatfinding n wnatD On,r-u !

of the
Lastly,you argue that WCAT's decisionshould be reversedon the basi
CanadianCharter f Riqhtsand Freedoms. Pursuantto

Yourstruly,
ttL Lc,os {1^r- t^)cAT i#tbt
a), {t* r^xa J'oJ1 doesf
ou$*too"tL
N€tr a- tos,1iw.^-[e-^'J
TimMartiniuk !
qi1n,^g (vras
LegalCounsel
CoN- cftME !
TM:lc/R-2007-55
-}*Gos /"J^*trrc '*'0& /
Enclosure

cc: RoyChupa
 ABSOLTITE PROOF
that governmentsacrossCanadahave NEYER
upheld The Churter of Rights und Freedoms
sinceits rep atriation and that
the unlawful standard of ooR EVERSE OIVUS"
is continuingto be appliedafter
the unjust governmentaldecisionshavebeenproduced
determiningthat the current org anizationof our country
is CORRUPT relative to equulityof being
and protectionof life, i.e. there is no justice until
the SupremeCourt throws out the injustice/BADFAITII
whoseapproachis unacceptableas it violates
the principles of Fundumentul Justice!
 *r "

BC Administrutive Tribunsls Act

This act is sirnilarto thoseacrossCanadathat imposequasi-judicialreview

of governmental decisionswherethe decisionby the governmentis inhered
with divinity until the SupremeCourt is forcedto imposethe FundamenlalJtt,vtic:e
decisionas thejudicial reviewis shownto be basedon bias in favourof'the lawl
governmentagentsand NOT Fttncluntentul ,Ittslice

Tribunal without jurisdiction over constitutional questions

11 (l) Then'ibunaldocsnrsthuvejuri,sdicliottoverconstitutionulque,stions.

(l) apptiesto etllupltliccrtirn,s

(2) Subsection on or clfterthedutethal lhe subseclionupplie's
madebe,/bre,
to a tribunul.
Tribunol v,ithout.iurisclictionover ('onudittn C.harlerof Rights crntlFreedom,sissues

15 (l ) The tribunul clocsnot huvejurisdiction over c'onstitulionnlquestion,sreluting to the C.anadian

Charter oJ'Right.scrndFreedom,s.

(l.l) Subsection(l) upplie,slo ull applicution,srnudebefore, on or ty/ier lhe date thcrtthe sub'secliott
uppliesto u tribunul.

(2) If a constitutionul questirtn,other thun one relatinglo the ConarJianCharter of Rights and Freeclttnts,
is raised h.ya purly in a tribunal proceeding

(a) on the request o/'u parlv or on il,s otyn inilicrtive, al unlt slcrge o,f'un applic'ution lhe trihunul ntuy re/er
lhat que,slirmlo lhe courl in lha./rtrm of u,stotetl cuse, or

(U on tltereque,sto.f'the lo thecourtin lhefornr

Generul,thelribunulmu,slre./brthutque,stion
Attorne.y
of a stutedca,se.

(This entire law violatess. 2a(l) of The Charter of Rightssnd Freedomsas constitutional issue
matters belong to the disenfranchised but Fundamental Justice is supposed to have been
inhered in the thoughts leading up to the laws and rejection of thosewhoseorder violatess.
7 and s. I of The Charter o.f Rights and Freedoms!)

(3) Thestaled cuse mu,sl

(a) bepreparc(l by the trihunal,

(b) he in v,riting, Jnc.'

iworn beforeme at
n theProvinceaf BritisftColumbia'
(c) be.filed wilh the court ragi,slr.y,antl rftis l-'l ao#2oQs -
t\ d-Vyl^\r-.

(d) inclucleu ,sltttenrenlof'tha /hc:lscrndrelcvant evidence. ffifrr rakiiig.iffidavts

within the Provinceof BrfiishL:olutflDn
(1) Subjectto the direction o/-thecourl, the tribunul musl
(ct) to the extent that it i,spructiccthle in light of thc stated cuse, proceed b hear ancl decicle ttll queslions
ercept the questions raised in lhe stateclcase,

(b) suspencl the upplicution us it relates lo the slated case oncl reserve ils cleci,sionuntil the opinion oJ'the
court has been given, und

(c) clecide the upplic:crlion in uccordance v,ilh lhe opinion.

(5) A stated cuse mu,sl he hrought on./br heuring o,\ soon as ltructicuble.

(6) Subject to suhsection (7), the courl ntusl heur and determitte lhe slated cose and give its deci,siott os
soon as prac:liccrble.

(7) The court muy rg./eythe statecl case buck to lhe tribunul.for unrenclmenl or clurificatiort, ctncllhe
tribunal mu,stprompllv anrcncl and relurn lhe ,sluled cu,sefor lhe opinion of the court.

S. 21(l) qfThe Charter oJ'Rightsund Freedom^tgrantsthe peoplethe right to advisethe courtsas

to the "appropriate and.just" outcomesrelativeto the order imposedby the law and security o.f'
person as affirrued hy Fundamental.Iustice.

S. 2I rf TheThomosShuchuk.Iuly25, 2005Alberla ()ourt of QueensBenchDecisionmakesit clear

that the laws areNOT beyondreformationwhich meansthat they can be struckdown permanently
or struck down and replacedwith the laws that were consistentwith The Clharterof Right^sand
Freedontsat the requestof thosebeingdeniedet)eryone'sLegal Rights.

As The Charter of' Rights ctndFreedon?,T w'erenever applied to any of the laws acrossBC and
Canada,my sllmmaryand perernptoryorder basedon FundumenlalJustice is thereforebeyond
reputeandmustbe accepted,iust aswill be applicableto othersimilarOrderproceedings thatfbllow.

It is obviousthat not I government has ever been devotedto the 3 standards of The Cltarter of
Rightssntl Freedomsandthat thecurrentlawsandtheir orderareinconsistentwith The Chafterand
its demands!

But, this is an after the fact realify that the compiledevidenceaffirms which forceseveryonenow
to uses. 2a(l) end.s.52(l) o./'TheCharterof Rightsand Freeclom,s to producethe corollury - single
set- o/-luvtsthat extentl.fromTheChurter o/ Rightsund FreedomsandFundamental,Justice that will
establishTHE IrREE Societyfbr everyonefrom pole to pole: being devoted to the 3 standards
would have meant that the singleset of laws for all Canadianswould have beenproduced by
now and everyonewould be living under this mind set rather fhan living under the ideology
of "pursing wealth" which contradicts the pursuit of THE FREE Society.

Canadais returningto Doing Right asit was beforethe contradictorypursuingwealthideologytook

holdin 1918.But.whatroleisleftfbrtheestablishmentwhereDoingRightisimbuedineveryone?

'@
 ludicial Review
ffiakingffidavits
of tl i e procedure i or a
his ,q u i d e b c L ockc l n ta i n sa n o v e rvi err,r, within the Province of'[]rrtisit L'olumD'a
rl
r ev ie r,v .In j trd i c i n l rt:r' i e rryth C out' toi B C i s askecllo set
, e Strprerno-
,
arrlecisiono{'a govel'nlnent like a tribtrnai.
bocJv,

A judiciai review is a complex legal process.
Severalstatutesor Acts set out the rules for a
judicial review. Two of these are the
Administrative TribunalsAcf, which sets out the
time limits for applying for a judicial review,
and the ludicial Review Procedure Act, which
sets out the procedural requirements. If you
are thinking of applying for a judicial review,
you need to read these Acts.
S ev er alS u p re me C o u rt R u l e s a l s o a p p l y to
applic at ion sfo r j u d i c i a l re v i e w . Y o u w i l l al so
need to be familiar with them. You car-rfind all
of the Rules and Acts at any courthouse library
or at the websites set out at the beginning of
t his guideb o o k .
other guidebooks in this series.Startinga Civil
Proceeding in Supreme Court and Chambers
Applications. You can find much of the
information you need to carry on your judicial
review in those guidebooks.
You should also review the guidebook,
Overview of the Supreme Court Civil Process,
to understand the court process and how to get
started on some procedures.
This guidebook gives you only a general
introduction to judicial reviews. To apply for a
judicial review, you will need to do more
researchon the law, the Rules and the Acts
that apply to your specific case.

Judicial reviews are started by filing a

doc um ent ca l l e d a p e ti ti o n . (P e ti ti o n sa re
discussedbelow.) You should also read two rrh\1

What is judicial review?

Tribunals are specialtzed decision makers
because their decisions concern a specific
A judic ial r e v i e w i s a l e g a l p ro c e d u re th at
subject area (such as workers' compensation,
t ak esplac e i n In a j udi ci al
review, a Supreme Court judge reviews a
decision that has been made by an
adm inis t r a ti v etri b u n a l o r a n a d mi n i s tra ti ve
8.1- go.-.r-. +l^r- 3rr.rr r+(Lry
t. T1^ a-e-* r.^A)cGrtLz
c1,1lrrc- re-r.fircrd €irc<e*3 rJNufrO FtrL I
specialized knowledge and experience in their
What is an administrative particular subject areas and, because of that,
tribunal or administrative the courts will not easily interfere with a
decision maker? tri bunal ' s deci si on.
-Ttr' trtx TB?^ I
The government of BC creates tribunals to Here are some examples of the situations
interpret and enforce certain laws, such as d.lvr " *lrl,
r es ident iall a n d l o rd a n d te n a n t i s s u e s . Legss -.,.J
TL brgl.ftJ pa."..5-.p[ g.+possr-H1J *Lrrtr or''Aor r^ttt.*Tha **&'[+u<h

4i"^
\a,. l.er.e, c.jlra
elv8# rt€:L,\.
JA" ftu*1" r tsgqol
 S
[\$IHNI

s.sr\\:
$\i\ss\: *Si.t$s$o\*tpfly
$\*gistvwt
$s:luN* r the Province tt1'B Columbia,

"\"*: this 11
Suisxtt.*v
Si:rsS$
**ls* Sv\ssn*g;*r A Commissioner.for taking
within the Province ofBritish
$\N.: [:sr:stNs"sss
$1$$T$$
$'IunrN*r.
*$*rirsl

\o$rsss\t{sst\$ $sts l* t\..}rNrstss

st *\srru$ry"\t\" ti}$l} is vxst**t.s\s y*r;l. \*t)l*str.:$tixts\\R}f\\N\
rrss:|srisls.\i\*r r\\r\\$f"nsr$s$sl
in$*rmsti*ll -l,sms rsvi*wtsS ls:, t$rs N$**Ji*srslil)ug:*rtsnsttt,*xnqS
\s*sssrr\$$\ ti\$ *g:inii*rnx"*$*i\$**J,y$\i ut:rsq$Slt $t*$sss{*}$1.Y$\.$l $**\s$ \vss t$:ntYr:tsstill
"]
*:*rsl*J 5t'*hl*ms ts t$lis*\nsrx" N:*$**t it is
**\ rislsts t\* s'ig|tt*rN[:t::l-v tl$\in't

it rs n*t $ $s\\, $**rsi*r-t,...*l**r$5*,t\*r* N\$ss

s\\*\i:\$\ $\
*r-'\*i*$t-:s:
$\s\.'\s wss isvi*tuJsd **:lS
sn$ s $**isi*x'\$:*ts$s.
vs*\r\\t*,1r.$- t-UQ-oNG. I
{sul$i\s *xBl*isrs$in g:sr*grspt:t L\{ \$$t}N"
s\s srsi:\x* $*{{*ri $**iss*ns sf t}t* Ssrs*
t*>
filst s5:g:**\*$ts t\r* {.:$N{:.T$r*t*sxs:ri\t** i'ulsn*t hsN srl {-\N$}\ts*trssrity
N$ssrxgsN"i\s"q*\
slslx,$*sr:rsi*n
t"\\\\ji$\sj'ti:* t$'l*s
ti"r*tr-vssr*n*t*xs*tt$*\ls.:lqintt *:f \$rt}$\$\\rinf*:rrx*t\**,
i"*irlsirt't\t
lv*ti\rt $* [:*irrg r$*nirs$$r ss$\$]\*t* l*v*l r\$ $]$$*sl sh*:tl\*j thrwil\Rtt*r $$il\s
N.s\l'.-Nstxss
$\r"rilsgyt* \$r*rAppr*lxist^l*r^*rsxissi*s:, *\$ *SN* i"lwst'l*\ l"**nN*lrrsr.$
As r.v\NlS- s $**\si*tx l*i\f\
s"*s$.*t*\t* t\* r*r:*s\ su**{i*s$rr"st*rs:rstisst, s\[:$*s}N $r:rxsxlissi** h* r.vitlrq:u\
r,v*:s"tltl
iissssr$i*{i$*, sN s\* *:rxsl*f$tY $-tsnr*N$r*sts*$ *$i$\* {t:r Af\t}.tNts*:isi**tt

r*\ussntstJ
T\* t-i\*iris t-.rs\ltg; **k \\*\. \s*u \lsrus**i*t*trys{svtr**{ir
$*s \i$*r N*ti$$\.\ r*'il*\$lqtt
ss \s$L$
*{ t\* $\i-*tr.ls,
\,\s"$r*.lsli -'\L)
\*tt*s"t*:\ls\iri-rt* t*r,t}${N*t

l.-'- PvDL€-es - p@sr^pt z- ,oL^c J..^*J aA,L.,1*<.

'+l^.-
f, *Jr.J it NoT soto oq,f^p,z-{. o-"^J j*-* L_S.S"*-:
o"'ko.r^o"- l- r-5 co,,^.-pl..}.lt ,^**-*+aLL b*"o-r-*
"*Ur^pt

,A^r^^* bc l5iR.ttcl< Do.o,V &--.r.-.,"..r.

&- >-J"-,...-.U
s.t*liao oorL-r,.^r,,- !o tooor,- c 6f{.^^d ^ J cr.we <3a-i\ llg 0 3 2
k- .-o1,o,o- a.^J {-L- c>..,.F\r-., f *t*_;vr{o.^ * 5u.,..^.j1,,
;+
 isrro,u),, 'l'*
rhis ,,rdroinrhe
!!F a.ffidavitof
]t lil
7tt
IT Appetrls :worn beforeme at rnlrtA
n {-"'onurrissitln r lhe Province a./"Briti, Colqmbia, Page 7
this ;lo09 I Decision No.:2005-75
.---
A Commissionerfor taki@
u,ithintheProvince,)f'Srrtish

Decision
[15] partialdisability
Theworkeris notentitledto temporary afterMarch25,
benefits
2003dueto the injuriesfromherMay24,2001accident.

l16l Thisissueof appealis denied.

t 17l servicesafter
lssue2: ls the workerentitledto vocationalrehabilitation
March25,2003?

Analysis
[18] Thepanelmustconsider andpolicy:
the relatedlegislation

[18.1] Section89 of the Act givestheWCBauthorityto offervocational and +- ba att.^*I

rehabilitation
services to assistan injuredworkerto returnto work. do,.pw

[18.2] injuryresultsin
WCBPolicy04-05directsthat,whena work-related
compensa ictionsthatimpaira abili
vi ot.-l*r
or\te.,l",dl nto
{.19 to-*r"q oF Torsat cc*,a'^a'*
"AIIL
[18.3]
services.theworkermustbe entitledto benefits
return-to-work
56 of the Act. r\jc-vie-r

[1e] questions:
The panelmustanswerthefollowing

workrestrictions?
t1e1t Doestheworkerhavecompensable

t1s.2tlf so,do theworker'scompensable impairtheworker's

workrestrictions
employabilityat pre-accldent
insurable
earnings?

thefirstissueof appeal,the panelconcluded

ln deciding theweightof medical
evidence doesnotsupporttheworkerhascompensable after
workrestrictions
March25,2003.Giventhe panel's
conclusion thattheweightof evidence doesnot
supporttheworkerhascompensable afterMarch25,2003,the
workrestrictions
panelalsoconcludes services
rehabilitation
theworkeris notentitledto vocational
afterMarch25.2003.

.s*e,vcito .t Jt--oht^ 6ec.f OISdEdt uES J

tfe 05
 The Charter is not some holy grail which only judicial initiatesof the superiorcourts may
touch. The Charter belongsto the people. All law and law-makersthat touch the people must
conform to it. Tribunals and commissionschargedwith deciding legal issuesare no exception.
Many more citizens have their rights determinedby these tribunals than by the courts. If the
Charteris to be meaningfulto ordinarypeople,then it must find its expressionin the decisionsof
thesetribunals.

Similar views had beenexpressedby the majority in Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R.
929.

30 Second,Charterdisputesdo not take placein a vacuum.

They require a thorough understandingof the objectives of the legislative scheme being
chailenged,as well as of the practical constraintsit faces and the consequences of proposed
constitutionalremedies.This need is heightenedwhen, as is often the case, it becomes necessary
to determinewhether a prima facie violation of a Charter right is justified under s. 1. In this
respect,the factual findings and record compiled by an administrative tribunal, as well as its
informed and expertview of the various issuesraisedby a constitutionalchallenge,will often be
invaluableto a ieviewing court: see Douglas College, supra, at pp. 604-605.As La Forest J.
correctlyobservedin CuddyChicks,supra,at pp. 16-17:

It must be emphasizedthat the processof Charterdecisionmaking is not confinedto abstract

ruminations on constitutional theory. In the case of Charter matters which arise in a particular
regulatorycontext, the ability of the decision maker to analyzecompeting policy concernsis
critical. . . . The informedview of the Board,as manifestedin a sensitivityto relevantfactsand an
ability to compilea cogentrecord,is alsoof invaluableassistance.

3l Third, administrativetribunal decisionsbasedon the Charterare subjectto judicial review

on a correctnessstandard:seeCuddy Chicks,supra,at p. 17. An error of law by an administrative
tribunal interpreting the Constitution can always be reviewed fully by a superior court. In
addition,the constitutionalremediesavailableto administrativetribunals are limited and do not
include generaldeclarationsof invalidity. A determinationby a tribunal that a provision of its
enabling statuteis invalid pursuantto the Charter is not n future decisionmakers,within
or outside the tribunal's administrativescheme.

32 In DouglasCollege,supra,La ForestJ. expresslyconsideredand rejectedseveralgeneral

argument, rud. againstrecognizing that administrativetribunals that have jurisdiction to decide
questionsof law possessa concomitantjurisdiction to apply the Charter.He noted that some
authorshad pointed to practical concernswith respectto the desirabilityof such adjudication,
such as the lack of legal expertiseof someadministrativetribunals,the differencesbetweentheir
rules of procedureand evidenceand those followed by courts, and the need to maintain the
accessibiiityanA timelinessof their procedures.Nevertheless,La ForestJ. concluded,at p. 603,
that these considerations,"though not without weight, should [not] dissuadethis Court from
adoptingwhat has now becomethe clearly dominantview in the courts of this country".Nor, in
my view, should such practicalconsiderationssurreptitiouslyfind their way back into the courts'
of a particular
analysis jurisdicti?A,rd;tpit?
tribunal's ylr?fulegislativeintentto
n?tffi ,Zf7;r1fr
,ffidavit
o/ 6if . ,Klftt.qJ t6
,:ornbeforemeat ffrl'9\A lltlq' s$
' the Province al'Briti;h Columbia,
rrs-Ja-dl"q/ A,Sttt 2ogq
A Commissioner.for taking Affidavits
within the Provinceof'Brttish Cofumbia
pain provisionsdid not demeanthe human dignity of the claimantsand thus did not violate s.
I 5(l ) of the Charter.

Held: The appealsshould be allowed. Section 10B of the Act and the Regulationsin their
entirety infringe s. l5(1) of the Charterand the infringementis not justified under s. 1. The
challengedprovisionsare of no force or effect by operationof s. 52(1) of the ConstitutionAct,
1982. The generaldeclarationof invalidity is postponedfor six months from the date of this
judgment. In M's case,the decisionrenderedby the Appeals Tribunal is reinstated.L's case is
returnedto the Board.

allow an administrativetribunal to decideCharterissuesdoesnot underminethe role of the courts

as final arbitersof constitutionalityin Canada.Administrative tribunal decisionsbasedon the
Charter are subjectto judicial review on a correctnessstandard.In addition, the constitutional
remediesavailableto administrativetribunalsare limited and do not include generaldeclarations
of invalidity.
or outsidethe tribunal's
administrativescheme.

The Court of Appeal erred in concludingthat the AppealsTribunal did not havejurisdiction to
considerthe constitutionalityof the challengedprovisionsof the Act and the Regulations.
Administrativetribunals which havejurisdiction,,explicit or implied, to decidequestionsof law
arisingundera legislativeprovisionare presumedto have concomitantjurisdictionto decidethe
constitutionalvalidity of that provision. In applying this approach,there is no needto draw any
distinctionbetween"general"and "limited" questionsof law. Explicitjurisdictionmust be found
in the terms of the statutorygrantof authority.Impliedjurisdiction must be discernedby looking
at the statuteas a whole. Relevantfactorswill include the statutorymandateof the tribunal in
issueand whether deciding questionsof law is necessary to fulfilling this mandateeffectively;the
interactionof the tribunal in questionwith other elementsof the administrativesystem;whether
the tribunal is adjudicative in nature; and practical considerations,including the tribunal's
capacityto considerquestionsof law. Practical considerations,however, cannot override a
clear implication from the statute itself. The party alleging that the tribunal lacks
jurisdiction to appty the Charter may rebut the presumption by pointing to an explicit
withdrawal of authorify to consider the Charter; or by convincing the court that an
examination of the statutory scheme clearly leads to the conclusion that the legislature
intended to exclude the Charter (or a category of questionsthat would include the Charter'
such as constitutional questions generatly) from the scope of the questions of law to be
addressedby the tribunal. Such an implication should generallyarise from the statuteitself,
rather than from externalconsiderations.To the extent that Cooper v. Canada(Human Rights
Commission),, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854, is inconsistentwith this approach,it should no longer be
reliedupon.

The AppealsTribunal could properlyconsiderand decidethe Charterissueraisedin this case.

Thelegislature
expressly
conferred to decidequestions
oty,filpit$m1l1-,llbWrtlrlffi,tytrhfl;ity of
rffidavitof
''torn before 3
me al
Columbia,

l'lg 000
issnner for tgktng Affidavits
v,ithintheProttnceol iJrttlih iit,ri,iii
119 As the a llantspoint out, the licies that usedto vide fo
following the enactment of the
:fore, giving immediateeffect to
the declarationof invalidity of these provisions could result in prejudice to injured workers
affectedby chronic pain, as the Board would then have no specificpolicies or provisionsto rely
on in such cases.While somedefault or residuaryprovisionsof the Act and of the regulationsas
well as policies of the Board might apply, the resultswould likely be inconsistent,given the
considerablediscretionwhich would be left to the Board in chronic pain cases.The default rules
might even preventcertainchronic pain sufferersfrom receivingany benefits,as was the casefor
Ms. Laseur.Allowing the challengedprovisions to remain in force for a limited period of time
would preservethe limited benefits of the current program until an appropriate leg!9l_allYg
to chronic pain can be implemented.

er, supra.

I would thris reinstatethe judgment renderedby the AppealsTribunal

the Martin caseon January31,2000.

121 The Appeals Tribunal, however,refusedto grant permanentimpairmentbenefitsto Ms.

Laseurbecauseshe did not challengethe constitutionalityof the applicableguidelines,which
attributeda permanentimpairmentrating of 0o/oto her injuries. In my view, it is appropriateto
return Ms. Laseur'scaseto the Board for reconsideration on the basisof the subsistingprovisions
of the Act and the applicableregulationsand policies.I note that, if Ms. Laseurelectsto raisethe
constitutionalityof the permanentimpairmentguidelines,the Board will be obligedto consider
and decidethe issuein accordance with the presentreasons.

I would answerthe constitutionalquestionsas follows:

I Do s. l0B of the Workers'Compensation Act, S.N.S.1994-95,c. 10, as amended,and the

Functional Restoration(Multi-Faceted Pain Services)Program Regulations,N.S. Reg. 57196
infringe the equality rights guaranteedby s. l5(l) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms?

Yes.

2 If the answerto question# 1 is yes, does such infringementconstitutea reasonablelimit

prescribedby law and demonstrablyjustified in a free and democraticsocietypursuantto s. 1 of
the CanadianCharterof Rishts and Freedoms?

No.

ANNEX: RE,LEVANTLE,GISLATION

Workers'Compensation
Act, S.N.S.1994-95,c. 10

10A In this Act, "chronicpain" meanspain <F r/^\F

ffiion* for takmg Affidav.tts
u,ithinlheProvincert!'3'tti'rhColuntDru

4t

llg 00
 I
(a) continuing beyond the normal recovery time for the type of personal injury that
precipitated,triggeredor otherwisepredatedthe pain; or

(b) disproportionateto the fype of personalinjury that precipitated,triggeredor otherwise

predatedthe pain,

and includeschronic pain syndrome,fibromyalgia,myofascialpain syndrome,and all other

like or relatedconditions,but doesnot includepain supportedb

l0B Notwithstandingthis Act, Chapter 508 of the Revised Statutes,1989, or any of its
predecessors,
the InterpretationAct or any other enactment,

(a) exceptfor the purposeof Section23,a personalinjury by accidentthat occurredon or after

March 23, 1990,and beforeFebruaryl, 1996,is deemedneverto haveincludedchronicpain;

(b) a personalinjury by accidentthat occurredbefore February 1,7996, is deemednever to

havecreateda vestedright to receivecompensationfor chronicpain;

(c) no compensationis payableto a worker in connectionwith chronic pain, except as

provided in this Sectionor in Section l0E, or 10G or, in the caseof a worker injured on or after
February l, 1996, as provided in the Functional Restoration(Multi-Faceted Pain Services)
ProgramRegulationscontainedin Order in Council96-207 madeon March 26, 7996,as amended
from time to time and, for greater certainty, those regulations are deemedto have been validly
madepursuantto this Act and to havebeenin full force and effecton and afterFebruary1,1996.

10E Wherea worker

(a) was injuredon or afterMarch 23, 1990,and beforeFebruary1, 1996;

(b) haschronicpain that commencedfollowing the injury referredto in clause(a); and

(c) as of November25,1998, was in receiptof temporaryearnings-replacementbenefits;

(d) asof November25,1998,had a claim underappeal
'' '- rpferredto in lhe
Thisis Exhibit
(i) for reconsideration, '
lffidavitof V: J
,orn beforemeat ..
(ii) to a hearingofficer, a,
2o!l ,4
(iii) to the AppealsTribunal,or 6ar.la
O^n\rr
A Conmissioner .fttr taking
:-tri!ish
ffidav.its
(iv) to the Nova ScotiaCourt of Appeal, wilhin lhe Province ti Columbia

or whose appealperiod with respectto an appealreferredto in subclauses(i) to (iv) had not

expired,

the Board shall pay to the worker a permanent-impairment benefit basedon a permanent
medical impairment award of twenty-five per cent multiplied by fifty per cent, and an extended
earningsreplacementbenefit,if payablepursuantto Sections37 to 49, multiplied by fifty per cent

42

llg
\-
Donald Martin Appellant

V.

Workers'Compensation Board of Nova Scotiaand

AttorneyGeneralof Nova Scotia Respondents

and

Nova ScotiaWorkers'CompensationAppealsTribunal,
Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups,
CanadianLabour Congress,
Attorney Generalof Ontario,
AttorneyGeneralof British Columbiaand
Workers'Compensation Board ofAlberta Interveners

and between

Ruth A. Laseur Appellant

V.

Workers'Compensation Board of Nova Scotiaand

AttorneyGeneralof Nova Scotia Respondents

and

Nova ScotiaWorkers'CompensationAppealsTribunal,
Ontario Network of lnjured WorkersGroups,
CanadianLabour Congress,
AttorneyGeneralof Ontario,
AttorneyGeneralof British Columbiaand
Workers'Compensation BoardofAlberta Interveners

Indexedas:Nova Scotia(Workers'CompensationBoard)v. Martin; Nova Scotia(Workers'

CompensationBoard)v. Laseur

Neutral citation: 2003 SCC 54.

File Nos.: 28372.28370.

2002:December9:2003: October3.

Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and

Present:Mclachlin C.J. and Gonthier,Iacobucci,Major, Bastarache,
DeschampsJJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR NOVA SCOTIA

lfi 00
 .n the Province t1 lsritish
Page:4 Colunbia.
rfris_fl_lE,rfAgeCr- 2oS
the presenceclf a privativeclause -A
Connissionir foi raking Affidavin
the expertiseof the tribunal withlntheproyince,,, ,.:!i,rh
Columbia
the purposeof the act as a wholeandthe provision'inparttcular, allcl
the natureof the problenrin questton.

l" L'a.- +t*- t.,Y:ru+t '-|u"!''': o0 *L' -'r-{gf

Presence of a privative clause - *f''-'' 5'(,'-"

120l Section13.I of theAct providesthattheCommissionhasexclusivejurisdictionto examine,

lnqulre and uit'L'*a
isingundertheAct andregulations,
t s.z*()&

restiainefr UVinjunction,prohibitionor otherprocessor proceedings in any courtor areremovable

by certioruri or otherwiseinto any court. Prior to amendments passed in 2002, it was held that the
appropriatestandardof review for Cornmissiondecisionswas Ramey v.' MAM4n4us
Alberta (l4orkers CompensationBoard) (1997),200 A.R. 59 (C.A.); andSammut v. Alhertu
(WorkersCompensutionBourd Commission),120021A.J. No. 425,2002ABCA 87.
F.83- 2ooz e--{tt-. g-.^r.r aar@F Mt^t
[l
2@z:tlf
"37,;:"" l2l I Section13.4(l)of the Act, which wa di rovidesthat: " Tlte Board and any
't(e'
juiC.Jcr personwho hasa directinterestin a decision r LutrAppealsCommtss
to4f : ^-:^-- ---r^^ r-^^ ^ ):--^^+t-^+^.-^^+t^ ^ r.-^:^:.-.^ A^

was rernoved. t})$lirE&rt!ffir s .

Thecourtshaveconsidered wl-rether
it did not The Workers'
CompensutionBourdv. AppealsCommission (Labounty) 332 A.R .342, 2003ABQB 233,
Buchmann v. Alherta (Workers' Compensation,Appeal Commission) 350 A.R- 14,2003
ABQB 915. havecometo the oppositeconclusion:Akita Drilling v. Alberta

Canudu v. Alberta (Workers' ComperxsstionAp

ABQB 856,Alherta (Workers' CompensationBoard) v. AppealsCommiss
2005ABQB l6l. Moen J. fbund in the lattercasethat the appealclau
,riEiniB jj;:rF*:,,ier:€Klif:,*Alc4$.r$gl +rili,se:;i'.;-i113!l lii:i.''.,:Jl:'r,; r.:jLt!]'lii:riri ir'l;iiiri.: i.i ft;i#ri:+rjltiil

X
t22l Giventhe rightof appealon questions of law andjurisdiction,,it is logicalto cottcludethat
issuesof law orjurisdictionenioylowerprotectionthanquestionsofpure fact,whicharestill subject
bythereasoning
to thefull privativeclause.I am persuade,l in thecasescitedabovewhichconcluded
that the realpurposeof the amendments was not solelyto removethe right of the Boardto directa
rehearing.

Expertise of the tribunal

t23l The Comrnissiongenerallyhasexpertiseu'ith respectto decisionswithin its statutoryand

'' ''-"iq'J
't.|'-.jt
A KOg + ,r,,^A o{ @wfe i
 File No. 81581
KELOWNA Registry

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT (BRITISH COLUMBIA) FOR ALL OF CANADA

COMPLETION OF THE DEFACTO PETITION TO THE COURT

EXPOSING THE SUPPRESSED PETITION TO THE COURT DUE LEGAL PROCESS

AFFIDAVITS

E. J. Krass, SoH
Spokesperson for The Truth based FREE Society
Founder of the Unified College of Medicine
3929 Woodell Road
WESTBANK BC V4T 1E1

Email: ejk-soh@hotmail.com; unaprec8d@yahoo.com

Skydrive: http://cid-76d01868d933a2ac.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/Public/Summary%2
0and%20Peremptory%20Order

Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/people/view/10980131-son-of-heaven