A B.C. man who argued he could not be prosecuted for driving and tobacco offences because – among other reasons – he had changed his name to Tiberius Rex has been convicted of all three charges he faced. https://t.co/Pitg17B6x0
— CTV News Vancouver (@CTVVancouver) April 27, 2023
This opinion in this case is worth reading. It explains the logic behind why this man’s OPCA arguments are wrong. Some of my favorite lines:
- “Giving effect to the Defendant’s argument would be the worst example of elevating form over substance. It would render virtually any law meaningless, merely by referring to the prohibited conduct by another name. One could not be convicted of shoplifting when they were simply repurposing unsold goods for personal use. Assault would no longer be criminal, when the Defendant was guilty only of intentional force application absent consent. Murder would be allowed as purposeful non-consensual early life termination… I give little consideration to the Defendant’s argument that laws and regulations are only meant to direct the conduct of government employees. That argument falls under the rubric of nonsensical submissions that deserve summary dismissal. Like it or not, one cannot simply “opt out” of the laws and regulations with which one does not agree.”
- “Society provides many benefits to its citizens, including the construction and maintenance of roadways to allow for free travel. In exchange for so doing, citizens are bound by the rules that dictate how these collectively owned assets are to be utilized. Driving is a privilege, not a pre-ordained human right. That is the cost of society, of technology, and of community. As it has been said at least since the 1930’s, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” If one is unprepared to abide by the laws and regulations that govern the privilege of driving, one can simply choose not to drive. “
- “Finally, the Defendant’s argument that since he did not consent to this prosecution, somehow it was unlawful, is summarily rejected. Such a claim is deserving of no further comment. It is not a valid use of taxpayer-funded resources to refute manifestly unsound, baseless conjecture.”
I wish more opinions would explain the reasons behind why these arguments are illogical and meritless. I appreciate judges who take the time do so.