CASE LAW - R v Stein

BC Courts Coat of ArmsOne exemption from having to wear a seatbelt during normal operation of a motor vehicle is when one is a delivery driver who travels at 40 km/h or less and makes frequent stops. The Motor Vehicle Act does not define what the term "frequent stops" means. In this case, Judicial Justice H. W. Gordon examines the exemption, defines what he accepts frequent stops to be and convicts Mr. Stein. He also suggests that the legislature should revisit the law and include a definition so that drivers may be certain of the restriction.


Fully agree with the Judge.

Clear, logical, straight forward.

I like the way the Judge approaches the unknown and in all fair regard puts everything on the appropriate shelves.
Very good maneuvering around the vague legislature, proper ruling, even threw the defendant a bone of a $119 reduction.

To top it all off, the Judge made a dry and to-the-point recommendations to the "legislators" to do their jobs better.

Would've liked to see the Judge tell defendant to be wary of forming bad habbits as a result of exceptions that are fairly vague. (Driving and Legislation-wise ;)



Mr. Stein's appeal to this decision was ordered June 26, 2013. (See Her Majesty the Queen v. Stein, Victoria Reg'y AH48406012)
When clarifying the "Law" while exercising your Constitutional right to a "fair" trial, no dispute is a "pointless dispute" - especially when the children of numerous generations are not given a single day of formal education on the history of Law (common, statute, ecclesiastic, admiralty, natural, etc) and it's necessity for the application and preservation of a "free and democratic society."
Instead the children of today are babied into "group think" collectivism ideologies as presented by the majority of posts on this website. After all - it's not the State's job to educate the citizens of their inherent common law rights; it is the duty of the family unit to continue the traditions to hold government accountable using the Rule of Law. And here in lies the rub - the loss of the "dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions" - CBR 1960.
At the very least each individual's 'day in court' is the formal education that 's needed to correct the growing revenue collecting Police State that Canada and other common law countries are facing. But then again, it's much easier being a slave to a system of deception than it is standing for what is right and unpopular in a corrupt and unjust system. Don't ask questions - just pay the fine and don't rock the boat!
It's nice and cozy to agree with the logic behind Justice Gordon's judgement but unfortunately Gordon made a fundamental error of Law by adding to the legislation "within a block" or "no longer than 3 minutes" in his test.  As observed in R. v. McIntosh (1995) 1 S.C.R., Lamer C.J. (26) and in Pierre-Andre Cote’s book The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada,  its concluded that the adding to the terms of the Law such as “within a block” or “intervals less than a minute or two” as outlined in Justice Gordon’s Judgement of March 26, 2013 contradicts the rule and interpretation of law.
R. v. McIntosh (1995) SCC (26) "Since the judge’s task is to interpret the statute, not to create it, as a general rule, interpretation should not add to the terms of the law. Legislation is deemed to be well drafted, and to express completely what the legislator wanted to say."
What was that post about the "to-the-point recommendations to the "legislators" to do their jobs better"? I would argue alongside Pierre-Andre Cote that the legislature expressed "completely what the legislator wanted to say" and that JJ Gordon along with any Police officer who enforces the Law needs to improve their knowledge of fundamental justice and constitutional law. This is scary when authoritative figures agree with such nonsense. But this is to be expected from traffic court where "police/citizen interactions... are the bread and butter of Provincial Court. (R. V. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160 (CanLII) This is business as usual in our justice system - tax revenue collection.
Also first pointed out in my testimony and reinforced in a previous post that the word "delivery" isn't found anywhere within the MVA 220. But during cross examining Sgt Leblanc testified that there's "case law that has dealt with the delivery driver exemption". My question is, was Sgt Leblanc lying to the courts with this testimony, was he trying to chum-chum the Justice in his favour, or was he given misinformation from his supervisors about this law - especially since JJ Gordon admitted in his Reasons for Judgement that there is no previous case law in BC about this subject matter? Is this the "best of his knowledge and ability to perform and fulfill the duties and requirements of his office"?
The facts are that the words written in sec. 220(5)(c) of the MVA describe Mr. Stein's lawful excuse with evidence provided under oath which weren't countered by Sgt Leblanc during cross examination. For Justice Gordon to intervene by "adding to the Law" begs the question of how many other injustices he's approved while at the bench.
JJ Gordon erred in numerous ways, including "courtroom irregularities" which hints to his bias for the Crown's position, not to mention both of their relentlessness to find Mr. Stein guilty. Read the transcripts to this case and you'll see how the Reasons for Judgement will lead the reader to agree with the Justice, failing to identify the facts of Law which the Justice should have taken into account in his ruling. 
The reduction in fine to $50 was the carrot in front of the mule not only to create a guilty precedent setting case but to make him feel he had a "fair trial" and to give him a discount for his efforts. (Kinda like the "reduce the fine if you pay within 30 days discount" propaganda) 
In my personal opinion and within the support network of legal researchers, the blatant collusion between the Learned JJ Gordon and Sgt Leblanc (the Crown) to withhold fundamental justice to Mr. Stein is a tell-tale sign of our revenue oriented Police State times - where the only real place for proper justice is found at the highest levels of our Constitutional Courts (I hope), not in a "business as usual" kangaroo court.
This case is not about a seatbelt ticket - its about keeping the revenue flowing under the guise of 'public safety' and the illusion of the necessity of government intervention into the privacy of the people. That's why Police have resorted to hiding in bushes and using telescopes to hunt down their daily revenue. (R. v. Thnadi 2013) Sound familiar NSA and CSIS?
O Canada, what do we stand on guard for? I hope it's the Rule of Law!