Friday, November 18, 2022
Monday, November 14, 2022
Tuesday, August 9, 2022
Tuesday, August 2, 2022
Queen v Guthrie Alberta Count of Appeal no ID necessary
In the Court of Appeal of Alberta
Citation: R. v. Guthrie, 1982 ABCA 201
Date: 19820622
Docket: 14019
Registry: Calgary
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
- and -
Patricia Gwenne Guthrie
Appellant
The Court:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Laycraft
The Honourable Mr. Justice McClung
The Honourable Mr. Justice Belzil
Reasons for Judgment of The Honourable Mr. Justice McClung
Concurred in by The Honourable Mr. Justice Laycraft
And Concurred in by The Honourable Mr. Justice Belzil
COUNSEL:
A.R. Robertson, Esq., for the Appellant
Crown C.E. Musk, Esq., for the Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE McCLUNG
[1] This is an appeal in law from a case stated by His Honour Judge Robbins of the
Provincial Court following the conviction of the appellant after trial of an information
alleging that the appellant “… did unlawfully and wilfully obstruct W. Gentle, a Peace
Officer, in the execution of his duty contrary to paragraph (a) of s.118 of the Criminal
Code.”
1982 ABCA 201 (CanLII)
[2] The issue for determination is whether the appellant was under a legal obligation
to identify herself to the police in the circumstances under which she was found and
whether her refusal to do so constituted an obstruction as envisaged by s.118 of the Code.
[3] The facts found in the Provincial Court included the following. At 1:10 a.m. on
July 2nd, 1981 Constables Gentle and Simonson of the Calgary City Police were exiting
the police garage onto 6th Avenue S.E. at the intersection of 6th Avenue and 3rd Street
S.E. in Calgary. Both were in uniform and occupied a marked police vehicle operated by
Constable Gentle. At this time Constable Gentle noticed movement in the darkness
inclosing the Calgary Police Association parking lot located at 428-6th Avenue S.E. The
movement was about 15 ft. to 20 ft. into the lot as measured from the sidewalk. At the time
the police were conscious of earlier break-ins of police officers’ private vehicles parked in
the lot. Constable Gentle engaged the overhead lights of his vehicle and moved on to 6th
Avenue to investigate. As he turned on to 6th Avenue he saw the accused. She was
wearing a black leather jacket and denim jeans. She carried nothing and was walking in an
easterly direction from the parking lot towards the sidewalk. Constable Gentle drew level
with the appellant, pulled the vehicle across her path and called to her to stop for a
moment. The appellant asked “Why?”, walked around the police vehicle across 6th
Avenue to the south curb, still heading east. Again Constable Gentle moved the police
vehicle across her intended path and both constables instructed her to stop. Constable
Gentle asked “What were you doing in the parking lot?”. The accused stopped, looked at
the officers and walked around the vehicle again. At this time Constable Simonson got out,
approached her and told her to stop. She refused and Constable Simonson took hold of
her right arm and stood in front of her thereby preventing her further progress. She was
then told she would be detained until she gave her name and her identification could be
verified. She was then told to get into the rear of the police vehicle. She refused. She was
then arrested for obstruction and put into the vehicle. Inside the police vehicle she refused
to answer questions concerning her name and address etc., but was heard to observe
“This is going to be interesting to see the system working.” The police vehicle was driven
back to the parking lot. At that time an Oldsmobile vehicle within the lot was found with its
door open. It had not been forcibly entered and nothing had been removed from it. Under
questioning concerning her possible involvement with that vehicle the appellant maintained
her silence. Apart from some minor resistance to being placed in the police vehicle the
appellant was described as polite, not nasty or abusive. Upon escort to Police
Headquarters and then to the Calgary Remand Centre the appellant relented and
identified herself.
1982 ABCA 201 (CanLII)
[4] The learned Provincial Court judge held that failure to identify herself in the
circumstances amounted to an obstruction of the officer in the execution of his duty and
convicted the appellant.
“We go over to this case”, he noted, “where Constable Gentle observed that he saw
this person in the shadows of the police garage; there had been difficulties there
before. He observed her under what, in his mind, would be suspicious
circumstances. And in so doing, he requested that person to identify themselves.
Now, in those circumstances, I am satisfied that he is in the execution of his duty and
in my mind it would place the matter in the Moore and The Queen case, where the
officer, by requesting the accused to identify himself, was carrying out the duty of
enforcing the law. And when the accused refused to accede to the officer’s request,
he was obstructing the officer in the performance of his duty.
Looking at the evidence here in totality, Mr. Robertson, I must conclude that
although she perhaps only made the officer’s duty more difficult, that under the
circumstances her conduct does come within Moore v. The Queen and I must find
her guilty.”
[5] Clearly, the time of night, the location and the history of recent offences leave
little doubt that the officers acted in furtherance of their duties in attempting to clarify the
appellant’s identity and presence. If authority were required it could, at least, be found in
the duties prescribed by The Police Act, now R.S.A. 1980, Chap.P-12,s.31(1) which
include
(i) the preservation of the peace,
(ii) the prevention of crime and of offences against the laws in force in Alberta, and
(iii) the apprehension of criminals and offenders and others who may lawfully be
taken into custody.
But that does not conclude the matter. The real question here is whether the appellant’s
silence amounted to a wilful and unlawful obstruction and in my opinion it is answered in
Rice v. Connelly (1966) 2 All E.R.649 where Lord Parker, C.J. noted
“Wilful in this context means not only intentional but also connotes something which
is done without lawful excuse … Accordingly the sole question here is whether the
appellant had a lawful excuse for refusing to answer the questions put to him. In my
judgment he had. It seems to me quite clear that though every citizen has a moral
duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that
effect and indeed the whole basis of the common law is that right of the individual to
refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority, and a refusal to
accompany those in authority to any particular place short, of course, of arrest.”
[6] In Rice v. Connolly a conviction for obstructing a peace officer based on facts
invitingly similar to those set out by the learned Provincial Court judge in the case herein
stated was quashed. A suspect refused to give his full name and address to police officers
1982 ABCA 201 (CanLII)
after being seen in early morning hours behaving suspiciously in an area where break and
entry offences had earlier occurred. To the same effect is Ingleton v. Dibble, [1972] 1 All
E.R.275. In Canada we have, amongst the many authorities reviewed in Moore v. The
Queen (1978) 43 C.C.C. (2d) 83, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 195, post, R. v. Patrick (1960) 32 C.R.
338, 128 C.C.C. 263 and R. v. Bonnycastle [1969] 4 C.C.C. 198, 68 W.W.R. 407 where
McFarlane J.A., speaking for the British Columbia Court of Appeal, carefully separated the
duty of peace officers to make inquiries and the legal right of a suspect to refuse to answer
them in circumstances where the law did not mandate that he do so.
[7] The learned Provincial Court judge felt obliged to follow Moore v. The Queen in
equating the appellant’s silence to a wilful obstruction. But critical to the result in Moore
was the fact that a constable on duty had witnessed the commission of a statutory
infraction - the running of a red light - and the fact that the constable had no power to
arrest the suspect for any offence unless and until he had attempted to identify him so that
he might be the subject of summary conviction proceedings. Criminal Code s.450 (2)(d)(i).
The authority of Rice v. Connolly was neither doubted nor diminished by Spence, J. who
wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in holding that Moore’s silence
during his interrogation amounted to an act of obstruction. Spence, J. said, referring to
Rice v. Connolly:
“It is paramount to note that the appellant there had not committed any offence in the
presence or view of a police officer.”
[8] That is what happened, or more precisely, what didn’t happen here. To supply
the needed wrongdoing Mr. Musk argued, somewhat faintly, that a violation of The Petty
Trespass Act, R.S.A. 1970, Chap. 273 had been observed. But no evidence was led, or
finding made, that the City Police Association parking lot was land protected by the
operation of that Act which provides:
“2.(1) No person shall trespass upon
(a) privately owned land, or
(b) Crown land subject to any disposition granted under The Public Lands Act,
except a grazing lease or a grazing permit, or
(c) a garden or lawn,
with respect to which he has had notice by word of mouth, or in writing, or by posters
or signboards, not to trespass.”
[9] We view the right of silence in response to police interrogation, custodial or
otherwise, as too firmly established within the common law to be unseated by mere judicial
1982 ABCA 201 (CanLII)
erosion. It must await statutory impetus as exampled in the Immigration Act R.S. (1970)
c.325, s.19(2), the Customs Act R.S. c.58, s.239, s.233(2) of the Criminal Code (leaving
the scene of an accident) and the various provincial enactments concerning the
investigation of highway traffic accidents. See Ratushny, Self-incrimination in the
Canadian Criminal Process (1979), page 144. To this extent the result in Moore v. The
Queen, supra, may be said to turn on the inferral of an obligation to speak out drawn from
a peace officer’s power of arrest without warrant in summary conviction offences as recited
in Criminal Code s.450.
[10] The common law right of silence in an interrogative setting is separably
supported in recent judgments issued within the Supreme Court of Canada. Lamer, J. in
Rothman v. The Queen (1981) 59 C.C.C. 30 would locate it within freedom of speech.
Dickson, J. writing in minority in Moore v. The Queen, supra, noted that the proposition
took root in two other fundamental common law principles, namely; the presumption of
innocence and privilege against self crimination, although as made clear in Regina v.
Marcoux and Solomon [1976] 1 S.C.R. 763 the latter is now relegated to simple privilege
against testimonial compulsion. Additionally, and the point is made by Dr. Glanville
Williams, if silence in the absence of a statutory compulsion to answer were obstruction all
such statutory imperatives would be unnecessary. Demanding Name and Address (1950)
66 Law Quarterly Review 465.
[11] In quashing this conviction comment is not taken upon the legality of the
appellant’s arrest. It is an issue distinct to the issue of obstruction. The officers’ beliefs and
whether they were reasonable and probable as influenced by the appellant’s refusal to
account for herself in the circumstances all weigh in such an inquiry. Demanding Name
and Address, supra.
[12] The questions raised by the learned Provincial Court judge in the case stated do
not entirely coincide with the grounds of appeal that were argued. Therefore I would
answer them in this way. In the circumstances disclosed by the facts given us including the
absence of the apparent commission by the appellant of any offence known to law, her
failure to identify and account for herself at the request of Constable Gentle arose within
lawful excuse and did not constitute the obstruction charged.
[13] The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed.
DATED at Calgary, Alberta,
this 22nd day of June, A.D.
1982.
Tuesday, July 12, 2022
minister Diane's private agreements with many private men and women acting service providers in Sandusky county Ohio
Saturday, July 9, 2022
July 7th 2022 Private agreement reached between the man John Cipolla and Jessica Woodley as posted in "Midland Today" Ontario Canada.
Statement of Facts/Request for Admissions
1. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that On 8/21/2009 Jessica and I
were married in Niagara Falls, NY. That same year we moved from Buffalo, NY to Emsdale,
Ontario.
2. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that in the Summer of 2010
we moved to Utterson, Ontario where I landed a new job. On July 29 2015 our daughter Vela was
born, with the help of our midwife, in Huntsville, Hospital.
3. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that in October 2017 we sold our
Home and I accepted a job with the state of Hawaii. Jessica did not want to go to Hawaii so I
went to test the job for 6 months. Jessica and Vela moved to Midland.
4. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that in 2017 we met half way in
Venice, California and spent Christmas together.
5. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that March 2018, we spent 2
weeks together on vacation in Hawaii. Jessica and Vela returned to Midland and I returned to
Oahu to pack up. In may I quit my job and returned to Midland to live with Jessica and Vela in the
in law suite of Jessica’s parents basement.
6. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that In December 2018, Jessica
applied for, and I agreed to, with intent to avoid State interference with our marriage , an
uncontested New York divorce which was granted January 2019.
7. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that in January 2020, upon our
return from a 2 week vacation in Florida, I learned that my father’s health and life expectancy
had taken a turn for the worse so I stayed in Buffalo for a week to spend time with my father.
1 of 5
8. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that on or about February 15,
2020 Jessica and I had a minor disagreement about who would get Vela on the school bus each
morning. Jessica’s mother over heard and intervened. The disagreement was exasperated by
Jessica’s mothers’ previous threat to subject Vela to an experiment to forcibly vaccinate Vela
without our consent. Jessica’s mother upon hearing our minor argument told me to leave at that
time. I moved 4 minutes away.
9. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that on or about March 1, 2020
Jessica Woodley without my knowledge or consent or without a required travel order removed
Vela, age 4 from my my custody, and intentionally hid, contrary to the courts endorsement, at
101 Picnic Island Rd, Honey Harbor with the man she revealed to me had raped her at 15 years old.
This was done while I was in Buffalo, a couple of days, as of a compassionate necessity, caring for my dying father.
10. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that Christine Woodley,
Frank Woodley, and the named Child rapist, Andrew Nicholson, all aided, abetted and conspired in
Vela’s non consensual removal separation and seclusion from my dutiful ministerial care. It was
Jessica’s own uncoerced admission that when Jessica was 15 Andrew the man she is living with
and subjecting my daughter to, unsafe, as he raped her. Because of Andrews age at the time of
the rape, that makes Andrew a Pedophile. Andrew has also been a chronic alcoholic for over 20
years.
11. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that up and until March 1, 2020
that I was Vela’s safe and secure primary Care giver, and financial provider.
12. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley there is no dispute to the fact that on or about June 19, 2020,
Father’s day Weekend, Vela found Jessica’s cell phone, called me and told me she was near picnic
island, close to the water and that mommy’s abusive boyfriend, Andrew, drove a blue pick up
truck. Jessica heard Vela talking to me and took the phone away from Vela. At that point Vela was
crying and telling Jessica she wanted her Daddy before Jessica hung up the phone.
2 of 5
13. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that on June 19th 2021 that
Jessica’s car was parked in the driveway of the 101 Picnic Island Rd when I pulled in and yelled up
to Jessica to bring Vela and come down. Jessica, was shocked that I found her, came down and
handed me Vela. I buckled Vela into her seat, put Vela’s bike in my trunk and pulled away to
return to my home address..
14. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that Vela stayed with me the
entire father’s day weekend. I exchanged Vela with Jessica at my home, with the mutual
understanding that Vela will be returned immediately to the safety of Jessica’s mothers family
home just 4 mins from me. Jessica took Vela back to 101 Picnic Island w/o my knowledge or
consent. Subsequently, Jessica retained a lawyer, Jeremy Herron, who advised Jessica to
keep(kidnap) Vela. Jeremy foolishly, in an attempted adhesion parenting agreement sent via
email, threatened me, with out a court order, that I would not see Vela again unless I agreed to
his terms(threats).
15. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that Justice Wildman issued an
Endorsement DATED acknowledging mothers (Jessica’s) and Vela’s home address as 36 Dawlish
Ave. Port Mc Nicoll. In contempt of J. Wildman’s Endorsement, Jessica continued to keep Vela at
101 Picnic Island. Jessica has claimed Andrew Nicholson was her childhood pedophile rapist and
staying with him is endangering vela.
16. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that subsequently, in contempt
of Justice Graham’s 02/2021 ruling, and 10 minute court admonishment to Jessica and her
Attorney, Jeremy Herron, that Vela be returned to 36 Dawlish Ave Port McNicholl. Jessica has
remained, and still is, in contempt of J Graham’s ruling over a year ago. J. Graham further
directed Jessica and Jeremy that they needed a mobility order which they never applied for or
received!
17. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that at the 02/21 hearing, I
informed J Graham that Vela had been unlawfully taken, again, from the family home
and from Vela’s Tay Shores Elementary school without my knowledge or consent and registered at
Honey Harbour Elementary(30 minutes north of Tay Shores) with a fraudulent address, fraudulent
last name and Andrew Nicholson fraudulently listed as Vela’s step father! Weeks earlier Vela
informed me that Jessica told Vela that she had two fathers-me and Andrew. When Vela informed
me of the Child abuse(psychological and emotional manipulation) I drove with a friend to Honey
Harbour Elementary and met with the principal who confirmed the same information that Vela
had conveyed to me.
18. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that subsequently, Jessica’s
co-conspirator, pedophile rapist, Andrew Nicholson, threatened to kill me in front of Vela.
CAS investigated and confirmed that Andrew admitted to the CAS workers he had uttered death
threats to kill me in front of Vela age 5. Vela is being held against her will under Andrew’s roof
with nobody to help Vela. Jessica in contempt of both J. Wildman’s and J. Graham’s Endorsements
and continues to violate both Endorsements with impunity.
19. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that on or about March 2021, I
retained a process server to serve a civil suit on Jessica and her criminal co-conspirators:
Andrew Nicholson, Christine Woodley, Frank Woodley and Jeremy Herron. The process
server went to 101 Picnic Island to serve Jessica and pedophile rapist Andrew. Jessica dialed 911
and in violation of the criminal code committed mischief as she falsely claimed I was kidnapping
Vela. Approximately 10 minutes later, OPP arrived and witnessed that my process server was
lawfully serving process and that Jessica had intentionally falsified her 911 kidnapping call. No
charges that may have rightfully been laid against Jessica were preferred at that time.
20. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that Jessica committed child
abuse(parental alienation) and separation trauma to Vela and I for 6 weeks the summer of 2021
including, but not limited to, blocking Vela’s grandmother, aunts, uncles, cousins and my cell
phone number.
21. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that Jessica is currently
Committing intentional selfish child abuse(parental alienation) by withholding Vela, for the 3rd
time. Jessica has not returned Vela since February 27, 2022, our agreed upon exchange date,
witnessed by a disinterested 3rd party, Vince Spacone, until present.
4 of 5
22. It’s agreed by Jessica Woodley that there is no dispute to the fact that I never ever assaulted
Jessica or took her cell phone that she forgot and left at my house which was returned to her.
Jessica assaulted me on my private property, on or about May 2, 2021 in retaliation for
relating the facts relative to our sharing parental time agreement to her, by scratching my face
then grabbed Vela, on my access day, fleeing the scene of her crime and falsely
reporting(committed perjury) that I assaulted her. Jessica, after calling 911 and refusing a 911
ambulance twice , was coached for approximately 90 minutes by two female police officers to go
to the hospital and feign head injuries that had zero connection to or were a result of any of my
actions.
5 of 5
https://www.midlandtoday.ca/classifieds/announcements-and-events/business-announcements/1727681
Monday, June 13, 2022
Brother Robert's agreement with the head of home depot Ted Decker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)