R. v. Stacey

Date: 20101019 Docket: 09/79 Citation: R. v. Stacey, 2010 NLCA 63 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: CARLSON W. STACEY APPELLANT AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT Coram: Wells, White and Harrington, JJ.A. Court Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division 2008 06T 0053 Appeal Heard: September 14, 2010 Judgment Rendered: September 14, 2010 (Orally) Written Reasons Filed: October 19, 2010 Reasons for Oral Decision by Wells, J.A. Concurred in by White and Harrington, JJ.A. The Appellant Representing himself Counsel for the Respondent: Stephen R. Dawson REASONS FOR ORAL DECISION Wells, J.A.: Page: 2 [1] This is an appeal from conviction on three charges under the Criminal Code: mischief, contrary to s. 430(1)(d); uttering a threat contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a); and breach of undertaking (resulting from that threat) contrary to s. 145(5.1). All of the charges result from actions of Mr. Stacey in the course of asserting ownership of 7.5 hectares of land, known as “Dock Point” in Marystown, lawfully in the possession of others. Essentially, Mr. Stacey either places his own incorrect interpretation on the legal effect of, or refuses to accept three decisions of the Trial Division of this Court. [2] One is the 1995 decision by Justice Riche, interpreting the will of Ambrose Ross Murley, by which Mr. Stacey asserts Larry Murley inherited land, including the land at Dock Point, which he later conveyed to Mr. Stacey. The second is a decision by Justice Adams in 1997, certifying title to the 7.5 hectares of land at Dock Point to be vested, at that time, in William H. Wiscombe and his three brothers, pursuant to the Quieting of Titles Act, RSNL 1990, c. Q-3. The third is a decision by Justice Handrigan, in 2005, specifically determining that Mr. Stacey had no legal entitlement to the Dock Point land and granting an injunction restraining him from entering upon it. [3] Notwithstanding that this is an appeal against conviction on charges under the Criminal Code, at the conclusions of his factum, Mr. Stacey indicated that he was seeking an order: To have all charges and quieting of title to be overturned and dismissed; … a permanent injunction stopping all invalid claims to this registered granted land; … vacate and make void by removal of quieting of title deed, applications; … general damages; … special damages; … costs.” [4] Obviously, it was necessary at the outset of the appeal hearing to attempt to explain to Mr. Stacey that this Court has no jurisdiction, on this hearing, to consider the correctness or otherwise of the decisions he refuses to accept: the 1997 decision of Justice Adams granting a certificate of title to William H. Wiscombe and his brothers; and, the decision of Justice Handrigan who evaluated Mr. Stacey’s claim to the land in the injunction action take by Wiscombe’s Enterprises Limited. On this appeal, this Court must accept the orders flowing from those earlier decisions as valid and binding unless and until one or both of the decisions are specifically appealed and varied. The rule against collateral attack was expressed by Page: 3 McIntyre J. in Wilson v. The Queen, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594. At p. 599, he wrote: ... It has long been a fundamental rule that a court order, made by a court having jurisdiction to make it, stands and is binding and conclusive unless it is set aside on appeal or lawfully quashed. It is also well settled in the authorities that such an order may not be attacked collaterally – and a collateral attack may be described as an attack made in proceedings other than those whose specific object is the reversal, variation, or nullification of the order or judgment. … That principle has been reaffirmed in subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and applied by this Court since that time. (See, for example, R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333, at page 348; R. v. Dempster, 2005 NLCA 73, 252 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 206; and Oliver v. Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission, 2007 NLCA 67, 271 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 121.) [5] In the Court’s attempt to explain that legal position to Mr. Stacey, legal terms and expressions were avoided as much as possible. Nothing, however, seemed to make much of an impression on Mr. Stacey. He presented his appeal only in terms of asserting that the decision by Justice Riche resulted in Larry Murley having absolute title to 80 ¼ acres of land, including the 7.5 hectares of the Dock Point land, and challenging the effect of the earlier decision by Justice Adams vesting title in Wiscombe’s Enterprises Limited and the decision of Justice Handrigan determining that the basis for the title claimed by Mr. Stacey had no merit whatsoever. [6] The rule against collateral attack meant that Mr. Stacey could not, at trial, challenge the conclusions in the above noted decisions and, therefore, could not establish either legal title entitling him to possess the Dock Point land, or a color of right that could excuse the unlawful actions that he took in pursuit of his claims, which actions resulted in the convictions now being appealed. For the same reasons, not being able to challenge the correctness of those three decisions in the course of this appeal, Mr. Stacey could not show error in the trial judge’s conclusion that he had neither title nor colour of right. [7] As to Mr. Stacey’s evidence, generally, the trial judge concluded: … Let me say at this point that I do not accept Stacey’s evidence where his evidence conflicts with that of other witnesses. His evidence throughout was given in a belligerent manner, and he refused to look at or acknowledge proffered Page: 4 documents, and also refused to admit to obvious similarities in documents and land descriptions. Overall, he was not a credible witness. In passing, I would note that those observations are clearly supported on examination of the transcript. Both Mr. Stacey and Larry Murley obstinately refused to consider any document indicating the Dock Point land was owned by others. They rejected, out of hand, every document shown to them and blustered some unfounded assertion as resulting in Mr. Stacey now being the title holder to the Dock Point land. [8] With the sole exception of claiming that the trial judge mistook Mr. Stacey’s blessing himself to be a threatening gesture, which assertion the trial judge rejected on the basis of Mr. Stacey’s lack of credibility, Mr. Stacey did not specifically challenge the factual findings of the trial judge respecting his actions on the Dock Point land. He simply claimed, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and the three Trial Division decisions, that he owned the land, and in his own words, “you can’t bar a man from his own property.” [9] Mr. Stacey misconstrued the decision of Justice Riche as confirming a title in Larry Murley to three parcels of land totalling 80 ¼ acres granted by the Crown in 1862 to one Samuel Murley, Mr. Murley’s great-grandfather, and as a result, Mr. Stacey argues, enabling Mr. Murley to convey the 80 ¼ acres to him. He dismissed the decision of Justice Adams with the totally incorrect assertion that “quieting of titles is for Crown land not private property … you can’t get quieting of titles to private property.” He denied the explicit findings of Justice Handrigan and asserted Justice Handrigan was not dealing with “his” property at Dock Point, and “did not” find that he was cutting wood on Wiscombe’s land. He denied acting contrary to the injunction with the assertion that “an injunction is only good for one month”. [10] Mr. Stacey’s unwarranted assertions are such as to breathe new life into the adage, “A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” To evaluate and attempt to explain why Mr. Stacey’s unfounded assertions lack merit is to accord them a level of credibility they, obviously, do not deserve. There being no legal entitlement to justify, nor color of right to excuse, the actions that Mr. Stacey took, the appeal, in the circumstances, could only be dismissed, and it was dismissed immediately upon conclusion of the hearing. [11] In terms of law, the foregoing explanation is sufficient to justify dismissal of the appeal without further reasons. However, the panel is Page: 5 concerned that, notwithstanding his direct involvement in the proceeding that resulted in the thoroughly reasoned decision by Justice Handrigan, explicitly determining, and explaining why, Mr. Stacey had no entitlement to the 7.5 hectares of land at Dock Point, Mr. Stacey refuses to accept the decisions and insists on proceeding as though they did not exist, or, at least, as though those courts could not make such decisions if they adversely affected what he claims is registered in his name. That circumstance makes it desirable, although strictly speaking not legally necessary, for this Court to add its efforts to those that have gone before in an attempt, by its comments, to make Mr. Stacey aware of why he has no basis for claiming ownership of the land and no basis for claiming a right to be excused in respect of any unlawful actions he takes to assert his alleged ownership of the Dock Point land. BACKGROUND [12] In his decision interpreting the will of Ambrose Ross Murley (1995), 130 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271, Justice Riche quoted the whole of the will. It is obvious that the primary bequest is: I nominate and appoint Helene Murley’s son, Timothy Clarence Nelson Michael Murley, as heir to my Estate, namely the Rev. A.R. Murley’s Estate. My Estate will include my residence in which [I] now reside, the land on which it is located, all the land up Glendon Brook, which I own and have used for cutting firewood, growing vegetables, etc. My land in on the Winter House Meadows which I have surveyed also belongs to Timothy C.N. Michael Murley. Also two gardens on the back road, the lower garden and the upper garden. Justice Riche interpreted this as making T.C.N. Michael Murley the residuary legatee. In addition to that broad general bequest there were several separate bequests of money, investments and other personal property to T.C.N. Michael Murley. [13] The will contained only two other bequests, both benefiting Larry Murley. One, Justice Riche interpreted as giving Larry Murley a life estate in the house (owned by the testator) in which Larry Murley was then living. The second bequest benefiting Larry Murley was: “Land. My middle garden on the back road, I also give and bequeath to Larry Gorden Murley. He grew potatoes there one year”. Justice Riche’s sole comment with respect to that bequest was “The middle garden on the back road is bequeathed to Larry Page: 6 Gorden Murley, without restriction, and there seems no need to comment further on that bequest.” [14] It may be helpful to comment here that, on the face of the will it would seem that only a minor fraction of the land of the testator was bequeathed to Larry Murley. It appears that there were three gardens on the back road. The testator refers to these as the “upper” garden, the “middle” garden and the “lower” garden. Only the “middle” garden was bequeathed to Larry Murley. There is no more explicit description than that. I would also note that nothing in the decision of Justice Riche deals with the means by which Ambrose Ross Murley became the owner of the property that was the subject of his bequests. There is nothing in that decision to connect the land that constituted the “middle garden” bequeathed to Larry Murley with the 80 ¼ acres in the 1862 Crown grant other than that his last name is the same as that of Samuel Murley, the grantee of the 1862 grant. Yet, in his evidence Mr. Murley asserted “… the garden is the grant itself…” and “… the register had this document in my great-grandfather’s name and when it was probated to me, I went in and updated it to my name and then Mr. Stacey’s name”. While it seems probable that the “middle garden” was on the land in the Crown grant, there is nothing to indicate it might have been anything more than a minor fraction of it. [15] In 1997 one William H. Wiscombe and his three brothers applied to the Trial Division, pursuant to section 3 of the Quieting of Titles Act for an order quieting the title to the 7.5 hectares of land at Dock Point. Subsection (1) of section 3 reads as follows: 3. (1) A person claiming to be the owner of land shall be entitled to have his or her title judicially investigated and declared, whether he or she has the legal estate or not, and whether his or her title is or is not subject to a charge or encumbrance. [16] A certificate of title was issued on July 28, 1997, and registered in the Registry of Deeds on September 15, 1997 all in accordance with sections 23 to 25 of the Act. That certificate contains a full metes and bounds description of the land and has attached to it a plan so clear that no one having any awareness of the town of Marystown could have any doubt as to the exact location of the property and its boundaries. The certificate vested title to the 7.5 hectares at Dock Point in Mr. Wiscombe and his brothers. The legal effect of such a certificate is expressly stated in section 26 of the Quieting of Titles Act. That section provides: Page: 7 26. The certificate of title sealed, signed and registered as required by section 24, shall be conclusive and the title mentioned shall be considered absolute and indefeasible on and from the date of the certificate as regards the Crown and all persons, subject only to charges or encumbrances, exceptions, or qualifications mentioned in it or in the schedule and shall be conclusive evidence that an application, notice, publication, proceeding, consent, and Act which ought to have been made, given and done before the granting of the certificate, has been made, given and done by the proper person. [17] Mr. William H. Wiscombe’s brothers conveyed their interest in the Dock Point land to him and the conveyance was registered. On June 9, 1999, he conveyed the 7.5 hectares at Dock Point to Wiscombe’s Enterprises Limited. That deed was registered on June 29, 1999. [18] His own evidence at trial indicates that Mr. Stacey personally “wrote” a four line handwritten document, containing a rubber stamp statement that it was “sworn” before a Commissioner for Oaths on September 3, 2003, which was “signed” by both Mr. Stacey and one Larry Murley. By it, Larry Murley purported to sell land “I have on the back road” to Mr. Stacey. The entirety of that document reads as follows: I Larry Murley [apparent signature] sell the land I have on the back road to Carlson Stacey [apparent signature] for the sum of $1.00 in hand well and truly paid for the property land and a Receipt. There was no description and no plan identifying the land supposedly being sold. It is on the basis of registering that document, and nothing more, that Mr. Stacey claims not only the 7.5 hectares at Dock Point but the total of “80 ¼” acres described in the 1862 grant. That four line document, together with an affidavit attesting to a value not exceeding $500, was registered in the Registry of Deeds on May 19, 2004. This occurred nearly seven years after Justice Adams issued the Quieting of Titles Act certificate vesting the title to the Dock Point land in the Wiscombe brothers, which certificate was, at that time, registered in the Registry of Deeds as required by the Act. [19] As a result of Mr. Stacey cutting wood on the Dock Point land in November 2004, Wiscombe’s Enterprises Limited advised Mr. Stacey he was trespassing and the company’s solicitors sent a notice, pursuant to the Petty Trespass Act, RSNL 1990 c. P-11, not to trespass on the land. Wiscombe’s Enterprises Limited commenced action in the Trial Division seeking an injunction and damages. They also asked for injunctive relief Page: 8 pending the hearing of the action. On December 16, 2004 Justice Handrigan issued an interim injunction directing: Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant will carry on any work on the disputed property, “Dock Point”, until the issue of ownership is determined. [20] Although, in the circumstances, he could simply have relied on the effect of section 26 of the Quieting of Titles Act, Justice Handrigan fully reviewed the claim of Mr. Stacey and did a detailed assessment of the background title starting with the 1862 Crown grant and setting out the means by which the Dock Point portion devolved from the original grantee, Samuel Murley, to the Wiscombes. Referring to the effect of section 26 as conferring “absolute and indefeasible” title to William H. Wiscombe and his brothers, and the effect of subsequent deeds of conveyance as continuing that title in the then current owner, Wiscombe’s Enterprises Limited, Justice Handrigan, in his decision 2005 NLTD 47, decided: [20] Wiscombe’s Enterprises is deemed to be in possession of the land whose title was quieted by this court for the Wiscombe brothers in 1997. The certificate which issued is “conclusive” evidence of the title that the brothers held at that time and the Applicant has shown that it has acquired that title by the two subsequent deeds of conveyance I discussed above. The quieted title was deemed “absolute and indefeasible” when the certificate was issued under the Quieting of Titles Act and it continues to have that stature under its current owner. [21] Carlson Stacey has not altered its status or even brought it into question by the evidence he gave and the documents he filed. He alleges that the land was owned by Samuel Murley who acquired it by Crown Grant in 1862. He says that Ambrose Ross Murley left it to Larry Murley when he died in 1991 and that Larry Murley sold it to him in 2003. [22] There are serious deficits in the chain of title which Carlson Stacey claims, both as to the succession of interests on which he relies and in the description of the property that he claims. … [21] Justice Handrigan, in six brief but clear comments, identified the defects in the title Mr. Stacey claimed to have obtained by that four line document signed by Mr. Larry Murley. He referred to the decision by Justice Riche but did not review it in detail. Two of his six brief comments relate to the effects of that decision. Those were: ● If I assume that land granted to Samuel Murley in 1862 Crown grant is part of the land in question in this application, Carlson Stacey has failed to show how Page: 9 Ambrose Ross Murley acquired Samuel Murley’s interest in it to bequeath it to Larry Murley when the former died in 1991. ● The bequest in the Murley Will which purports to transfer property to Larry Murley simply refers to “[m]y middle garden on the back road”. Carlson Stacey failed to show that the land described by this reference in the Will is part of the land which is in question here. Those and the other four brief comments would leave no one in doubt as to why Mr. Stacey had no valid claim to the 7.5 hectares at Dock Point and could acquire no valid claim to it through Larry Murley. [22] Following his assessment of the defects in the claim of Mr. Stacey, Justice Handrigan decided: [23] Wiscombe’s Enterprises has shown by overwhelming evidence that Carlson Stacey trespassed on their property and caused damage to it. He cut trees on the land and also cleared a portion of it to build a road. Stacey acted without color of right and his actions must be stopped. [24] There can be no dispute on the facts here despite Carlson Stacey’s protest otherwise. … [27] Carlson Stacey trespassed on the property and his actions should be enjoined. He failed to show that he had color of right for his actions. Four Wiscombe brothers quieted the title to this property in 1997. The certificate of title issued to them under the Quieting of Titles Act is conclusive evidence of their title. Wiscombe’s Enterprises is their successor in title and owns it absolutely and indefeasibly. As a result Justice Handrigan ordered: 1. Carlson Stacey cease and desist from entering upon land owned by Wiscombe’s Enterprises in Creston North, Marystown, NL and from otherwise interfering with their use and enjoyment of it. 2. This injunction will remain in effect pending final disposition of the action seeking a permanent injunction and damages. [23] Notwithstanding those explicit findings of Justice Handrigan, set out in the three immediately preceding paragraphs, Mr. Stacey asserted to this Court that “Justice Handrigan wrote nothing in his order to contradict me. He wrote in his law, they own their land and I own mine”. Mr. Stacey’s Page: 10 assertions fly in the face of the judicial determinations set out in those three preceding paragraphs. [24] It should also be noted that Justice Handrigan appears to have taken steps to make sure that no one could mistake the 7.5 hectares of land that was owned “absolutely and indefeasibly” by Wiscombe’s Enterprises Limited and in respect of which he decided Mr. Stacey was “without color of right”, let alone legal title. Although it is on a much smaller scale, Justice Handrigan included in his decision an exact replica of the survey plan that was attached to the Quieting of Titles Act certificate and the subsequent conveyances to Wiscombe’s Enterprises Limited. [25] By deed of conveyance dated November 26, 2007 and registered in the Registry of Deeds on November 30, 2007, Wiscombe’s Enterprises Limited conveyed to Thomas F. Murley Limited the whole of the 7.5 hectares at Dock Point described in the Quieting of Titles Act certificate. That company was in possession of the Dock Point land at the time that the incidents underlying Mr. Stacey’s convictions occurred. FACTS RELATED TO THE CHARGES [26] The trial judge found that on February 8, 2008 Mr. Stacey approached two employees of Thomas F. Murley Limited who were cutting trees and clearing the Dock Point land and advised them they were on his land. He ordered them off and they stopped work and left. A similar circumstance occurred on March 24, 2008. On that occasion, however, the employees called their employer, Thomas F. Murley Limited, and Mr. William Murley. Mr. Jeff Murley attended and told Mr. Stacey and Larry Murley, who was with him, to leave. Mr. Stacey’s response was that he would leave only if he were dragged out by the R.C.M.P. Before the police arrived, Mr. Stacey made a comment about getting his shotgun to protect his land. When the police arrived, both Mr. Stacey and Larry Murley were taken into custody. In order to achieve his release, Mr. Stacey signed an undertaking to abstain from contacting or communicating directly or indirectly with certain named persons, including Jeff Murley. [27] Later that evening, Mr. Stacey was walking in the vicinity of an intersection at which Jeff Murley had stopped his truck for a red light. The trial judge wrote that Mr. Murley testified that Stacey approached the passenger side window, looked in and gestured to Mr. Murley by drawing his flat hand across his throat in what the trial judge described a “cut throat” Page: 11 gesture. Mr. Stacey’s testimony as to the incident was that he had been almost hit by a truck, following which he blessed himself. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS [28] Mr. Stacey was charged with five offences under the Criminal Code: two counts of mischief arising from the events on the land on February 8 and March 24; two counts of uttering a threat, one in respect of the shotgun comment and the other in respect of the “cut throat” gesture; and one count of breach of undertaking as a result of communicating with Jeff Murley by the “cut throat” gesture. He was found not guilty on the mischief charge in respect of the March 24 incident on the land and not guilty of the uttering a threat charge, in respect of the shotgun comment. He was found guilty on the other three charges. Mr. Larry Murley was charged with one count of mischief, and tried with Mr. Stacey, but was found not guilty. [29] With respect to the mischief charge arising from the incident on February 8, the trial judge concluded that Mr. Stacey was fully aware that he was not supposed to be on the land at Dock Point. In that regard he commented that one of the employees of Thomas F. Murley Limited, who were there on February 8, said Stacey told them “don’t say I was here. I’m barred from the land.” The trial judge noted that this was not challenged. The trial judge also made the following findings: [37] I am also satisfied that the Crown has negatived any color of right defence available to Stacey. [38] Stacey … said that the Registry of Deeds did the title search and that the Registry would come out to do a survey if necessary. Said Stacey – “the Registry was responsible for the property”. He also testified to his view that you “can’t bar a man from his own land”, and that the Quieting of Titles Act applied only to Crown land and not to private property. [39] … the fact is that Stacey was well aware in December 2004 and March 2005 that the land was owned absolutely by Wiscombes and that he was prevented by Court order from going on to the land. Stacey admitted that he was aware of the 2005 order, but considered the Court injunction to be “only good for a month”. [40] I accept Keith Inkpen’s unchallenged evidence that Stacey said on February 8 – “don’t say I was here – I’m barred from the land”. Page: 12 [41] This comment and Stacey’s previous involvement in and knowledge of the injunction application and order satisfy me that Stacey did not have an honest belief in his right to be on the property. A refusal to accept what one knows to be the situation is not equivalent to colour of right. [30] With respect to the charge of uttering a threat, the trial judge referred to Mr. Stacey’s evidence that he thought he recognized Mr. Jeff Murley at the intersection but only after he blessed himself and concluded, “I do not find Stacey’s evidence credible”. He also concluded: [50] … I accept Murley’s evidence that Stacey approached his truck and, when within 5 or 6 feet of the vehicle, made a cutthroat gesture to Murley. Stacey’s explanation is not credible; … …. [52] In the circumstances, after the events of the day, including the argument on the land and Stacey’s subsequent arrest, a reasonable observer would conclude that the gesture directed at Murley would convey a threat of serious bodily harm. [31] With respect to the breach of undertaking charge, the trial judge decided: [55] Because of my finding of guilt on the underlying threat charge, it follows that I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Stacey is guilty of a breach of the undertaking. [32] In his comments, prior to imposing sentence, the trial judge observed: … it’s unfortunate that this has got to the stage where the criminal law has become involved. It has become involved because Mr. Stacey does not accept that the land in question is owned legally by Thomas F. Murley Limited and even from his comments here in court it appears that he still does not accept that, which is unfortunate but it is a fact … … the primary goal here is the specific deterrence of Mr. Stacey to bring home to him that the land ownership question is over. It is done with – it is finished and even though in his heart he may not accept that he needs to understand that he cannot take matters into his own hands. In my considerations, I’m influenced by the fact that the charge on which he was convicted was essentially a low key charge, he went onto the property and ordered Mr. Inkpen and Mr. Brenton to get off the land and they complied. There was no damage to the property and that’s all there was to it. On the Uttering Threats, again, it was in the circumstances it was at the low end of the scale, if you will, and perhaps as much out of anger as anything and nothing has happened since in that regard with respect to Mr. Page: 13 Murley … I’m not satisfied that a period of incarceration is necessary to achieve the objectives of sentencing in this case. In my view, the objectives of deterring Mr. Stacey and sending whatever messages may be required, can be met by the imposition of a period of probation and also by the imposition of a discretionary fire arms prohibition under subsection 110(1) of the code arising out of the Uttering Threats charge in the fact that violence was threatened in that charge. … The trial judge imposed a two year probation order and a one hundred dollar victim fine surcharge in respect of each charge, noting that, although the probation orders were separate, they would be concurrent. He also made a two year firearms prohibition order consequent upon the conviction for uttering a threat. APPEAL [33] Mr. Stacey, personally, filed a notice of appeal. No clear grounds can be discerned from his expression of the grounds of appeal. He also filed a factum which has the appearance of expressing the arguments he would have made in the civil action taken against him by Wiscombe’s Enterprises Limited. It made no reference to the appealed convictions or the factual findings on which they were based. It dealt only with his assertions on which he based his claim to be the owner of, amongst other lands, the Dock Point lands. [34] Mr. Stacey simply repeated the unfounded legal assertions referred to in the excerpts from the trial judge quoted above and added others including that the registration number 6148 on the Registry stamp on the four line receipt signed by Larry Murley was his “vendor number” and meant that any subsequent transfer of any part of the Dock Point land required using that number and only he could employ that number and execute a document to transfer title to any of the land at Dock Point. This assertion was based on his equally unfounded assertion that when he presented his four line handwritten document signed by Larry Murley, the Registrar of Deeds had his lawyers check the title and by assigning that number, they were certifying he was now the absolute owner of the 80 ¼ acres in the original Crown grant to Samuel Murley. Explaining the obvious errors in these assertions appeared to have no effect on Mr. Stacey. [35] Mr. Stacey presented no challenge to the factual findings on which the trial judge based the conviction decisions. His whole focus was on his claim to be entitled to the property and his assertion that that entitled him to rely on a colour of right defence to the criminal charges. Mr. Stacey has refused Page: 14 to consider the defects in his claim, identified by Justice Handrigan, and emphasized to him by this Court during the appeal hearings. He insisted, consistent with the evidence given by Larry Murley, at trial that the 80 ¼ acres of land granted to Samuel Murley in 1862 all went to Larry Murley as a result of the will of Ambrose Ross Murley and the decision of Justice Riche. He completely ignores the actual decision of Justice Riche interpreting the express provisions of the will as bequeathing all the testator’s property to Timothy C. N. Michael Murley, except for one of the three gardens separately identified, the middle garden which he bequeathed to Larry Murley, and the life estate of Larry Murley in one of the testator’s residences. Flying in the face of all of this, and the conclusion of Justice Handrigan, to say nothing of the Quieting of Titles Act certificate, at the conclusion of the appeal hearing, Mr. Stacey remained either unconvinced, or a person convinced against his will. He continued to be of the opinion that the simple reference in the will of Ambrose Ross Murley to “my middle garden on the back road I also give to Larry Gorden Murley” was by some inexplicable means sufficient to enable Larry Murley to convey indefeasible title to the whole of the 80 ¼ acres of land, granted to Samuel Murley in 1862, to Mr. Stacey. [36] It is, of course, obvious to all, except perhaps Mr. Stacey, that this Court can find no error on the part of the trial judge. The appeal could only be dismissed and, at the hearing, it was. In the circumstances of this case, the reasons for doing so could have been expressed in a few simple paragraphs. However, as noted above, the purpose of these more extensive comments is to pursue the hope, faint though it may be, that having a three judge panel of this Court do a detailed review of the background and fully assess Mr. Stacey’s basis for claiming entitlement to an interest in the land might finally cause Mr. Stacey to accept unavoidable reality: Larry Murley could not transfer title or any interest whatsoever in the 7.5 hectares of land at Dock Point to Mr. Stacey, or anybody else in 2003 because he had no legal interest in it himself; the unappealed decisions of Justices Riche, Adams and Handrigan make that legal fact absolute; that four line receipt written by Mr. Stacey, signed by Larry Murley and registered in the Registry of Deeds on the 19th of May, 2004, is worthless; it could no more transfer title or interest in the Dock Point land to Mr. Stacey than could a similar document signed by somebody claiming to be Santa Claus; and, registration in the Registry of Deeds cannot confer validity on a document that has no validity to start with. It is important to say to Mr. Stacey that, as matters Page: 15 now stand, he must accept that he has no legal claim whatsoever to the Dock Point land, and no credible basis for claiming a colour of right. [37] There was some indication that Mr. Stacey was also appealing sentence. However, when asked at the hearing if he wished to address sentence, his response was that he wished a new trial. Perhaps, for Mr. Stacey’s benefit, one further comment should be made. The comments of the trial judge, quoted in paragraph 32 above, indicate that, in imposing sentence, he was very lenient. That lenience should not be misunderstood by Mr. Stacey to mean that he, or any other person, can take matters into their own hands and pursue actions to assert rights to property, contrary to validly existing decisions of courts. Such decisions can only be challenged, by any person, by way of appeal. They cannot be challenged by bluster, irrational assertion of law and unlawful behaviour. To quote the trial judge, “a refusal to accept what one knows to be the situation is not equivalent to colour of right”. [38] It is hoped that the foregoing will make some contribution to Mr. Stacey understanding why he has no basis for claiming an interest in the land at Dock Point and why his appeal against conviction on the three charges was dismissed. _________________________________ C. K. Wells, J.A. I Concur: ____________________________ C. W. White, J.A. I Concur: ____________________________ M. F. Harrington, J.A.