Monday, September 14, 2015


So I've been reading parts of the Provincial Offences Act 1990, the Municipal Election Act 1996 (MEA), case law and the Election Finances Act 1990. The MEA appears to be in conflict with both the Provincial Offences Act and with case law. The bad news is that the particular case law I've read states that the MEA is wrong and that citizens can not take candidates (politicians) directly to court for MEA offences. That said there are two major issues. Firstly the case law keeps referring to the municipality having the sole authority to order a Compliance Audit and secondly to then order a candidate to appear at court on election financing charges. In other words there is no reference to MECAC the Municipal Elections Act Compliance Audit Committee. Therefore perhaps this case law was taken from prior to the latest amendments to the MEA. Secondly when case law is referred to it is supposed to be as close as possible to similar or identical circumstances as the current case in question. The case law I've read so far does not remotely share similar circumstances. It's referring to a citizen totally bypassing the elements and processes in the MEA which is not the case in regards to Mayor Shantz. I've been following those processes very carefully.

So while I have more case law to read I have to ask the obvious questions. Is the J.P. sending me on a wild goose chase simply to discourage me from proceeding? Keep in mind when you have become accustomed to constantly being lied to by authority figures, one comes to expect exactly that. Not everyone is corrupt but after a while the automatic trust response with new people is gone. In the alternative has the J.P. simply picked poor examples of earlier cases (ie. case law) to show me? Afterall keep in mind that after eight hours of waiting I really have not had a conversation with her. She advised me based upon my written submission to her yes but she has not asked me any clarifying questions. She does not know the specific facts regarding Mayor Shantz's errors, falsehoods, submissions to Superior Court and or verbal submissions to MECAC. Or finally is it simply premature for me to come to conclusions yet? I will keep reading.

I am a Delegate to Council tomorrow evening at 6 pm.. I will be discussing issues with both the MEA as well as with MECAC. These are issues which seriously weaken any attempt to enforce the Municipal Elections Act.


  1. Are you pursuing Perjury charges or Fabricating Evidence charges or Obstruction Of Justice charges?

    RE: Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 see

    The acts and intentions described sound like offences under the Criminal Code Of Canada so why did the JP refer you to the Provincial Offences Act?

    C.C.C. Section 131 (1) under the heading PERGURY sounds applicable OR C.C.C. Section 137 under the heading FABRICATING EVIDENCE sounds applicable or C.C.C. Section 139 (2) under the heading OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE sounds applicable. It sounds like the offenses above are indictable offences, whereas C.C.C. Section 134 (1) GIVING A FALSE STATMENT is only a summary conviction offence.

    Excellent Commentaries at

    I would think you should be able to see the JP and lay private charges if the police and MECAC are useless. You would have to 1. give evidence/proof of actus reus- (the action/criminal offence done) AND 2. give evidence/proof of mens rea- (specific intent to commit the Criminal Act aka evidence of a guilty mind)

    I recall something about needing more than just a single witness/verbal testimony to lay charges for Perjury, but the court documents and statements and affidavits corroborate your testimony.

    Mr. Marshall; Speaking Truth to power BLUNTLY is what we will do when the system does NOT work so let them make their choices and then we the people can judge them! AND WE WILL! Thank YOU

    1. Form 105 should work for offences under the Canadian Criminal Code. See the blurb below copied from

      "Generally, allegations of criminal activity are reported to the police. After the police investigate, they may lay criminal charges. However, anyone who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed an offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a Justice of the Peace.

      When the information is presented to the court by a private citizen, it is then referred to either a provincial court judge or a designated justice of the peace, who holds a special hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether a summons or warrant should be issued to compel the person to attend court and answer to the charge.

      This hearing, held under s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code, takes place in private, without notice to the accused person. At the hearing, the judge or justice of the peace must hear and consider all of the allegations and available evidence."

  2. COME ON GUYS! Give it a rest!! Laying charges? Really? Who do you think is going to run this town if you oust these guys? What do you really think will change? Will Alan be suddenly the local hero? I think not. The extent that you guys will go for perceived "injustice" is maddening. If everyone held you to task for every screw up you ever did, you'd be toast. Just think of all of the crazy slander that is on this site alone. Also, I think you are kind of "harassing" Council at this point and they may have a solid case against you. Lots of witnesses....

    I know that you find this "entertaining" but in your "fight" for TRUTH and JUSTICE you are actually destroying our little town. How can you sleep at night?

  3. I sleep well thank you. More info on Superior Court in today's (Tuesday) posting.