Short judgment from the Ontario Court of Appeal rejecting arguments that being "a natural person" and "international law instruments" means you don't have to pay for appeal transcripts.
Not a lot to say about this one. Paciocco JA concludes this is pseudolaw. He's almost certainly correct. the combination of constitutional remedies, international treaties, and human status suggests this might be litigation using John Spirit's concepts.
But maybe not. "Natural person" isn't language used very often by Canadian pseudolaw types. It's hard to pin down sources with this level of detail.
But the underlying theme - that international treaties are supraconstitutional authorities - that's ubiquitous in Canada the last decade.
Still, nice to see an appeal court neatly identifying these cranky theories for what they are.
(It's taken awhile.)
I see that the judge allowed a non-attorney external party with no camera to speak on behalf of the appellant.
I am assuming that when something clearly against the rules like that is allowed, it's a sign at the outset that the judge has already figured out how things are going to go.
Like, it's a bad sign if the judge lets you do that -- it probably means 'nothing she says is going to make any difference anyway so there's no clear error in allowing this'
Edit
And I would love to see a statement like this embedded in case law in the US (except of course minus one "Canada" and plus one "United States"):
(maybe it exists. I'd still love to see it.)
I want to see this get cited every time someone claims "I am the living man"
There's also a kind of quasi-hysterical "Access To Justice" thingie going on in Canada, which usually means anyone with a lawyer gets to run free, like the beautiful innocent creatures they are.
So my guess is just that the judge said, yes, this is hopeless litigation, but rather than risk being called out as an Access To Justice baddie simply ignored the rule about legal representation.
I've seen that a lot. Another reason for that is that in many Canadian jurisdictions, the legal regulators, our "Law Societies", don't pursue unauthorized practice sanctions. Apparently can't be bothered.