R. v. Furqan

R. v. Furqan Court Court of Appeal Date 2013-05-02 Citation 2013 NSCA 55 Docket CAC 409590 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Saunders, Jamie W. S. (Honourable Justice) (CA) Document Type Decision Decision Content NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Furqan, 2013 NSCA 55 Date: 20130502 Docket: CAC 409590 Registry: Halifax Between: Amir Furqan Appellant v. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice Jamie W.S. Saunders Motion Heard: May 2, 2013, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Chambers Written Release: May 6, 2013 Held: Registrar’s motion to dismiss the appeal granted. Counsel: Appellant not appearing Jim Janson for the respondent Decision: (Orally) [1] This case comes before me in Chambers this morning in the form of a Registrar’s motion to dismiss the appeal because of a failure to “perfect” it pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 90.43(3) and (4). The approach I take in such matters is that once I am satisfied the deadlines prescribed under the Rules have elapsed; that the Registrar’s action is well-founded; and that all interested parties have been properly notified; the onus shifts to those who would be adversely affected to persuade me that their appeal should not be dismissed. Islam v. Sevgur, 2011 NSAC 114. [2] Having reviewed the record I am satisfied that all of these requirements have been met and that therefore it now falls to the appellant or other interested party to persuade me that there are good and sufficient reasons to decline the Registrar’s motion. [3] Every step in this bizarre proceeding has been captured in the Registrar’s comprehensive chronology, as well as my memorandum to the file following Chambers on March 14, 2013, which also happened to be preserved on video recording. [4] I will, for the record, summarize my experience with Mr. Furqan in court. [5] Mr. Furqan filed a notice of appeal on November 27, 2012, which purported to appeal a decision of a Small Claims Court adjudicator dated March 8, 2012 whereby Mr. Furqan was convicted of driving while his license was revoked contrary to s. 287(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 293, as amended. The Registrar’s customary letter was sent to the appellant by mail on November 30, 2012 indicating that his notice of motion for date and directions and certificate of readiness had to be filed by March 26, 2013. Mr. Furqan filed a motion for various relief including certiorari, mandamus, etc. returnable March 14, 2013. He did not file a motion for date and directions. [6] When Mr. Furqan appeared in my Chambers on March 14 he emptied several briefcases and spread across the table a variety of papers, Holy books, Criminal Codes, law dictionaries, provincial and federal statutes, and what he described as the “1793 Canada Slavery Act”, each reference flagged with countless colored post-it notes. During the course of a rambling monologue Mr. Furqan advanced several “arguments” which included : that the laws of Canada and, in particular, Nova Scotia did not apply to him in any event; the Motor Vehicle Act only applies to corporations, or taxi drivers or limousine drivers and because he was none of those, he was not caught by the definition of “person” or “includes”; he was not a “person” as recognized in law; therefore, no court had jurisdiction over him anyway; he owes no allegiance to the Queen; he is “not Mr. Amir Furqan” and any such reference to him is insulting; he preferred to be called simply “Amir”; he was not an officer, official, or corporation under various statutes; the 1793 Canada Slavery Act was an important reference; he followed the lunar calendar; he “surrendered” his birth certificate (by leaving it in the courtroom); and he only intended to appear in court as a “use plaintiff”. Sprinkled throughout his submissions were phrases like “breach of contract” and “cestui que trust”. [7] Respectfully, it appeared to me that the appellant had lifted a series of words or phrases from dictionaries or penal statutes, strung them together in an attempt to persuade or impress, and was left with a submission that made no sense whatsoever. [8] After questioning by me, the appellant agreed that his Notice of Motion was flawed and had no bearing or connection to this appeal, which was an appeal from the SCAC decision of Rosinski, J., who had dismissed Mr. Furqan’s appeal from the decision of the adjudicator, Judith Gass, sitting in Provincial Court (who had convicted him of certain motor vehicle offences). In other words, his Notice of Motion which sought relief of “writ of Certiorari, Mandamus, and Quo Warranto ...” were irrelevant to this appeal. Accordingly, I dismissed his motion. [9] When I told him that his documentation to fix a date for his appeal was incomplete and that he would require a transcript before proceeding, he said that he could not afford to pay for one and asked that I waive that requirement or order someone else to pay for it. Based on the authorities filed by counsel for the respondent I said that I had no jurisdiction to waive the requirement, and that a transcript would have to be filed and paid for by Mr. Furqan. To this he said that he had no intention of proceeding with the appeal. I then cautioned him that the Registrar would take steps to have his appeal dismissed for non-perfection, all of which led to today’s hearing of the Registrar’s motion. The appellant declined my request to provide a mailing address in case documents or correspondence had to be sent to him saying that he was concerned about “blackmail”. As he was packing up his belongings he threw down on the table what appeared to be a birth certificate which he “surrendered”. After he left the courtroom I directed the clerk to retrieve the item so that it would not be thrown out with the garbage by the courthouse cleaners later in the day and ensure that it was later returned to the appellant at his last known address with a cover letter from the Registrar dated March 15, 2013 the text of which read: You chose to abandon this birth certificate which on its face appears to be yours, when you attended in Chambers at the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal on March 14th, 2013. You left it on a table in the courtroom saying you “surrendered” it. It is neither an exhibit nor part of the record. I have no reason, authority or intention to keep the birth certificate. I am returning it to you and you can do with it as you please. [10] Notwithstanding the fact that the Registrar’s letters providing notification of today’s proceedings sent to Mr. Furqan both by regular mail and by registered mail were returned to her office, I am satisfied that he has had appropriate notice and I deem him to have been properly served. I say that for two reasons. First, I warned him of the anticipated Registrar’s motion before he chose to leave the courtroom during the course of my final remarks on March 14, 2013; and when I asked him to provide contact coordinates so that documentation could be brought to his attention, he refused to provide such information to, in his words “prevent blackmail”. Based on that exchange, I find that he is deliberately attempting to frustrate the process of the court and refusing to cooperate. [11] On this record I will not hesitate to exercise my discretion and dismiss the appeal. So ordered. Saunders, J.A.