Form / Formule 2

RESPONSE
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE RÉPONSE
COUR DE JUSTICE DE L’ONTARIO (Rule 2.2, Criminal Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice) 22-11404139
(Règle 2.2, Règles de procédure en matière criminelle de la
East / Est Cour de justice de l'Ontario) Court File No. (if known)
N° du dossier de la cour (s'il est connu)
Region / Région

BETWEEN: / ENTRE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING / SA MAJESTÉ LE ROI

- and / et -

Robert Dinel
(defendant(s) / défendeur(s))

1. NAME OF RESPONDENT
NOM DE LA PERSONNE INTIMÉE
Robert Dinel

2. CHECK ONE OF THE TWO BOXES BELOW

COCHEZ LA CASE QUI CONVIENT CI-DESSOUS
I am appearing in person. My address, fax or email for service is as follows:
Je comparais en personne. Mon adresse, mon numéro de télécopieur ou mon adresse électronique aux fins
de signification sont les suivants :

I have a legal representative who will be appearing. The address, fax or email for service of my legal
representative is as follows:
J'ai un représentant juridique qui sera présent. L'adresse, le numéro de télécopieur ou l'adresse électronique
de mon représentant juridique aux fins de signification sont les suivants :
Address for service: Brian Doody (Counsel), 400 Daly Ave., Suite 6, Ottawa K1N 6H2
Telephone: 519-872-1905; Fax: 226-785-0957; Email: doodycounsel@gmail.com

3. CONCISE STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RESPONDING

BRÈVE DÉCLARATION DES MOTIFS DE LA RÉPONSE
(Briefly state why you are opposing the Application. For example, “The Applicant has not provided any medical evidence about pending surgery”;
“The Crown disclosure is complete”; or “The length of time is not unreasonable, the Applicant has acquiesced to any delay, and there has been no
prejudice flowing from the time to trial.”)
(Expliquez brièvement pourquoi vous vous opposez à la demande. Par exemple : « L'auteur de la demande n'a pas produit de preuve médicale au
sujet de son intervention chirurgicale imminente. », « La Couronne a divulgué tous les documents qu'elle pouvait. », « Le temps écoulé n'est pas
excessif. L'auteur de la demande a accepté n'importe quel retard et le temps écoulé jusqu'au procès ne lui a causé aucun préjudice. » )

See the Schedule attached to this Form, at paragraphs 1 to 9

4. RESPONSE TO THE APPLICANT’S GROUNDS TO BE ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION (#6 on application)

RÉPONSE AUX MOTIFS DE L'AUTEUR DE LA DEMANDE QUI SERONT INVOQUÉS À L'APPUI DE LA
DEMANDE (point 6 de la demande)
See the Schedule attached to this Form, at paragraphs 10 to 20, and the Notice of
Constitutional Question dated Oct. 31, 2023, also filed with this Form

5. DETAILED STATEMENT OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL BASIS FOR OPPOSING APPLICATION

DÉCLARATION DÉTAILLÉE DES FAITS PRÉCIS SUR LESQUELS SE FONDE L'OPPOSITION À LA DEMANDE
See the Schedule attached to this form, at paragraph 21.

COR-OCJ-2 (rev. 04/12) CSD

 RESPONSE
RÉPONSE
(Rule 2.2, Criminal Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice)
(Règle 2.2, Règles de procédure en matière criminelle de la Cour de justice de l'Ontario)
PAGE 2

6. INDICATE BELOW OTHER MATERIALS OR EVIDENCE YOU WILL RELY ON IN RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION
INDIQUEZ CI-DESSOUS D'AUTRES DOCUMENTS OU PREUVES QUE VOUS ALLEZ INVOQUER EN RÉPONSE
À LA DEMANDE
Brief statement of legal argument
Bref exposé des arguments juridiques
Affidavit(s) (List below)
Affidavits (Énumérez ci-dessous)

Case law or legislation (Relevant passages should be indicated on materials. Well-known precedents do not need to be filed. Only
materials that will be referred to in submissions to the Court should be filed.)
Jurisprudence ou lois. (Les passages pertinents doivent être indiqués dans les documents. Les arrêts bien connus ne doivent pas
être déposés. Il ne faut déposer que les documents qui seront mentionnés dans les observations au tribunal.)

Agreed statement of facts

Exposé conjoint des faits
Oral testimony (List witnesses to be called at hearing of application)
Témoignage oral (Liste des témoins qui seront appelés à témoigner à l'audience sur la demande)

Other (Please specify)

Autre (Veuillez préciser)

Nov. 19, 2023

(Date) Signature of Respondent or Legal Representative / Signature de l'intimé ou de
son représentant juridique

To: John Wright, Assistant Crown Attorney

À: (Name of Applicant or legal representative / Nom de l'auteur de la demande ou de son représentant juridique)

Ottawa Crown Attorney's Office, Room 3045, 161 Elgin St., Ottawa K2P 2K1
(Address/fax/email for service / Adresse, numéro de télécopie ou adresse électronique aux fins de signification)
NOTE: Rule 2.2 requires that a response to an application be served on the applicant and on any other affected parties.
NOTA : La règle 2.2 exige qu'une réponse à une demande soit signifiée à l'auteur de la demande et aux autres parties concernées.

COR-OCJ-2 (rev. 04/12) CSD

 SCHEDULE TO THE DEFENDANT’S FORM 2: RESPONSE

Part 1: Concise statement of reasons for responding

1. On Nov. 9, 2023, six days prior to the start of defendant’s 5-day trial scheduled to
start on Nov. 15, 2023, Assistant Crown Attorney J. Wright emailed over 370 pages of
documents in PDF format, described as “Crown Judicial Notice Materials”, to Defence
counsel B. Doody and to the Ottawa criminal-courts registry, comprised of: (a) “Book of
Authorities” (52 pages), (b) “Facts for Judicial Notice” (4 pages), (c) “Statement of Law
on Judicial Notice” (5 pages), (d) “Supporting Materials for Judicial Notice” (312 pages).

2. After deliberation in Court on Nov. 15, 16, and 17, the Court decided that Defence
counsel was permitted to serve and file a Form 2 Response no later than Nov. 20, 2023.

3. Defense counsel opposes admission of the 370 pages of Crown documents into
evidence, whether admitted as “Crown Judicial Notice Materials” or otherwise, because
the simple review of the 370 pages of documents will show that said materials sought to
be admitted are not limited to the statues, regulations and orders of the U.K. Parliament,
the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures of Canada, of which the Court
is required to take “judicial notice” pursuant to ss. 16 & 17 of the Canada Evidence Act.

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5 as am., ss. 16 & 17 (hereinafter
Canada Evidence Act)

4. Furthermore, with the exception of a few statutes and regulations, and 54 pages
of case law, none of the documents contained in the “Crown Judicial Notice Materials” is
“documentary evidence” within the meaning of ss. 19 to 28 of the Canada Evidence Act.

Canada Evidence Act, supra para. 3, ss. 19 to 28.

5. Moreover, none of the 370-pages of Crown documents sought to be admitted is a

“business record” admissible as evidence pursuant to s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act.

Canada Evidence Act, supra para. 3, s. 30.

 2

6. If the Crown intends to argue its so-called “Crown Judicial Notice Materials”
comprised of a “Book of Authorities” (52 pages), “Facts for Judicial Notice” (4 pages),
“Statement of Law on Judicial Notice” (5 pages), and “Supporting Materials for Judicial
Notice” (312 pages) at trial, it should follow the ordinary trial procedure to admit it as trial
evidence, with opportunities for defense to reply and cross-examine Crown witnesses.

7. Furthermore, the Defendant submits that the so-called “Crown Judicial Notice
Materials” are not in the form of a Form 1 Application which, as Rule 2.1 of the Criminal
Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice states, “shall include (a) a concise statement of the
subject of the application; (b) a statement of the grounds to be argued; and (c) a detailed
statement of the factual basis for the application, specific to the individual proceeding,”
for two reasons: (1) The Crown does not organize its materials around these questions,
as required by the prescribed Form 1: Application; and (2) The documents “Facts for
Judicial Notice,” “Statement of Law on Judicial Notice,” and “Supporting Materials for
Judicial Notice,” are identical to “Judicial Notice Materials” submitted in other cases.

Criminal Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice, SI/2012-30, s. 2.1.

8. The Defendant will argue that the Crown “Application” comprised of documents
with filenames such as “Facts for Judicial Notice,” “Statement of Law on Judicial Notice,”
or “Supporting Materials for Judicial Notice,” are prima facie inadmissible, and should be
excluded from the trial evidence pursuant to s. 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms (Charter), on the grounds that such “evidence” violates the defendant’s right
to make a full answer and defense, protected by s. 11(d) Charter, because the “Facts for
Judicial Notice” are not evidence of any “real or personal corporeal property” within the
meaning of s. 428 of the Criminal Code, which applies to Part XI of the Criminal Code.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in Part 1 of the Constitution Act,

1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 (hereinafter
Charter), s. 11(d) & 24.

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (hereinafter Criminal Code).

 3

9. The “Crown Judicial Notice Materials” thus violate Defendant’s right to make a full
answer and defense, protected by s. 11(d) of the Charter, because a Defendant has no
way of knowing what the “Grounds to be argued in support” are because the “Judicial
Notice Materials” do not follow the format required by the Rules in a Form 1 Application.

Charter, supra para. 8, s. 11(d) & 24.

Criminal Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice, supra para. 7, Rule 2.1.

Part 2: Response to the Applicant’s “Grounds to be argued in support of Application”

(Item #6 on Form 1 Application), served and filed on Nov. 9, 2023 (6 days before trial)

10. Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, at Item #27, confers on the Parliament
of Canada exclusive authority to legislate on “[t]he Criminal Law, except the Constitution
of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.”

Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, reprinted in RSC 1985, Appendix
II, No 5 (hereinafter Constitution Act, 1867), s. 91 at Item #27.

11. Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, at Item #13, confers exclusive powers
on the provincial legislatures to legislate for “Property and Civil Rights in the Province.”

Constitution Act, 1867, supra para. 10, s. 92 at Item #13.

12. “Mischief,” at s. 430(1)(c) & (d) Criminal Code, is found in Part XI, “Wilful and
Forbidden Acts in Respect of Certain Property” (ss. 428 to 447.1) of the Criminal Code.

Criminal Code, supra para. 8, Part XI, ss. 428 to 447.1.

13. Section 428 of the Criminal Code states that “[i]n this Part, ‘property’ means real
or personal corporeal property,” which is more restrictive than the definition of “property”
found in s. 2 of the Criminal Code, which “includes … real and personal property of every
description and deeds and instruments relating to or evidencing the title or right to
property, or giving a right to recover or receive money or goods” [underline added].

Criminal Code, supra para. 8, ss. 2 and 428.

 4

14. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “corporeal property” as “[s]uch as affects the
senses, and may be seen and handled, as opposed to incorporeal property, which
cannot be seen or handled, and exists only in contemplation. Thus a house is corporeal,
but the annual rent payable for its occupation is incorporeal. Corporeal property is, if
movable, capable of manual transfer: if immovable, possession of it may be delivered
up. But incorporeal property cannot be so transferred … [O]ther means must be adopted
for its transfer, of which the most usual is an instrument in writing.” [underlining added]

Black’s Law Dictionary (Abr. 6th Ed.) (West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., 1991)
(hereinafter Black’s Law Dictionary).

15. Black’s Law Dictionary also defines “real property” (in part) as “[l]and, and
generally whatever is erected or growing or affixed to land. Also rights issuing out of,
annexed to, and exercisable within or about land.” It defines “personal property” as “[i]n
broad and general sense, everything that is the subject of ownership, not coming under
[the] denomination of real estate. A right or interest in things personal, or right or interest
less than a freehold in realty, or any right or interest which one has in things movable.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, supra note 14.

16. The defendant submits that the only “property” with which the actus reus of the
offence of “obstruct[ing], interrupt[ing], or interfer[ing] with the lawful use, enjoyment or
operation of” is concerned (s. 430(1)(c) of the Criminal Code), based on the facts of the
case, must be the corporeal real property comprised of the Ottawa street intersection at
Sussex Dr. and Rideau St. where defendant’s corporeal personal property was situated.

Criminal Code, supra para. 1, ss. 428 and 430(1)(c) & (d).

17. Parliament, at s. 428 of the Criminal Code, has legislated that the only “property”
interest foreseen by s. 430(1)(c) or (d) Criminal Code must be (a) “real or personal,” and
(b) “corporeal” (capable of being seen or handled). Thus, “property,” other than the “real”
street where Dinel was observed and arrested, must be excluded from the actus reus.

Compare: Criminal Code, supra para. 1, ss. 428 and 430(1)(c) & (d).
 5

Black’s Law Dictionary, supra note 15.

18. Each of the three documents that the Crown seeks to introduce, namely, “Facts
for Judicial Notice” (4 pages), “Statement of Law on Judicial Notice” (5 pages) and
“Supporting Materials for Judicial Notice” (312 pages), concerns itself with either (a)
incorporeal rights to property, or (b) certain corporeal real property other than the
observable street intersection where the defendant was arrested on Feb. 18, 2022.

Compare: Criminal Code, supra para. 8, ss. 428 and 430(1)(c).

19. The defendant submits that his right to a full answer and defence to the mischief
charge, protected by s. 11(d) of the Charter, requires the Crown to prove the actus reus
of “obstruct[ing], interrupt[ing], or interfer[ing] with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation
of” real corporeal property viewed in situ at the intersection of Rideau St. and Sussex Dr.

Charter, supra para. 8, s. 11(d).

Criminal Code, supra para. 8, ss. 428 and 430(1)(c) & (d).

20. The defense submits that the Crown “Materials” fail to identify any witness, police
or civilian, who observed the defendant in situ at the intersection of Rideau St. and
Sussex Dr., prior to the arrest of the defendant peacefully by Cst. Ma, on Feb. 18, 2022.

Part 3: Detailed statement of specific factual basis for opposing Crown’s Application

21. For the reasons stated above and which will also be made in oral argument with
respect to the Crown’s 370 pages of materials, the Defendant submits that the Crown
has erred in law in its interpretation of the legal concept of “judicial notice” and has failed
to take into account ss. 428, 429(2) and 430(7) of the Criminal Code in its identification
of the corporeal real or personal property which comprises the actus reus of the offence.

Criminal Code, supra para. 8, ss. 428, 429(2), 430(1)(c) & (d) and 430(7).