May 3, 2012 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE Brief (New Brunswick Rules of Provincial Court Practice) FORM 3 Regarding: Court File Number: # 93818, BETWEEN THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and ANDRÉ MURRAY
http://justicedonedirtcheap.blogspot.ca/
CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO LIBRARY
INTRODUCTION 1. Democratic values and principles under the Charter demand that legislators and the executive take these into account; and if they fail to do so, courts should stand ready to intervene to protect these democratic values as appropriate. As others have so forcefully stated, judges are not acting undemocratically by intervening when there are indications that a legislative or executive decision was not reached in accordance with the democratic principles mandated by the Charter
2. To respond, it should be emphasized again that our Charter's introduction and the consequential remedial role of the courts were choices of the Canadian people through their elected representatives as part of a redefinition of our democracy. Our constitutional design was refashioned to state that henceforth the legislatures and executive must perform their roles in conformity with the newly conferred constitutional rights and freedoms. That the courts were made the trustees of these rights insofar as disputes arose concerning their interpretation was a necessary part of this new design.
3. So courts, in their trustee or arbiter role, must necessarily scrutinize the work of the legislature and executive not in the name of the courts, but in the interests of the new social contract that was democratically chosen. All of this is implied in the power given to the courts under s. 24 of the Charter and s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. (c) Is the Impact Disproportionate? 39. The impugned City Bylaws affects only bicyclists who may wish, for safety reasons, to use the sidewalk as a path of travel. Bicyclists suffer a disproportionately severe result where they are prevented from traveling on the sidewalk, the alternative being, bicyclists have to travel on the shoulder of busy congested roadways, where driver inattention and or mistake would be a fatal consequence to a small, not easily seen traveler on a bicycle. The minor inconvenience of a pedestrian on foot, occasionally crossing paths with a bicycle, is not proportionally worth making a bicyclist travel on a dangerous and potentially fatal shoulder of the roadway and does not qualify as a competing social interest.
4. However, prohibition against a responsible adult bicyclist traveling on an empty sidewalk, under threat of violent arrest, detainment, escalating monetary fines, and possible criminal charges once the Police are involved, does not promote public safety, accordingly, their lives and health are put at risk. This is not a minimal impact.
5. The Applicant is not seeking to have the City create more spaces to travel by Bicycles, or expand the streets to create special protected barrier bicycle lanes, the Applicant is not seeking any other expenditure of public funds. The Applicant is simply seeking to have a draconian, unnecessary, abused and misused, vague bylaw to be repealed, so that adult responsible, considerate bicyclists may share the sidewalk with pedestrians in an orderly and satisfactory fashion without being threatened by violent arrest, detainment, escalating monetary fines, and possible criminal charges once the Police are involved, which in no way promotes public safety
http://justicedonedirtcheap.blogspot.ca/
http://justicedonedirtcheap.blogspot.ca/
CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO LIBRARY
INTRODUCTION 1. Democratic values and principles under the Charter demand that legislators and the executive take these into account; and if they fail to do so, courts should stand ready to intervene to protect these democratic values as appropriate. As others have so forcefully stated, judges are not acting undemocratically by intervening when there are indications that a legislative or executive decision was not reached in accordance with the democratic principles mandated by the Charter
2. To respond, it should be emphasized again that our Charter's introduction and the consequential remedial role of the courts were choices of the Canadian people through their elected representatives as part of a redefinition of our democracy. Our constitutional design was refashioned to state that henceforth the legislatures and executive must perform their roles in conformity with the newly conferred constitutional rights and freedoms. That the courts were made the trustees of these rights insofar as disputes arose concerning their interpretation was a necessary part of this new design.
3. So courts, in their trustee or arbiter role, must necessarily scrutinize the work of the legislature and executive not in the name of the courts, but in the interests of the new social contract that was democratically chosen. All of this is implied in the power given to the courts under s. 24 of the Charter and s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. (c) Is the Impact Disproportionate? 39. The impugned City Bylaws affects only bicyclists who may wish, for safety reasons, to use the sidewalk as a path of travel. Bicyclists suffer a disproportionately severe result where they are prevented from traveling on the sidewalk, the alternative being, bicyclists have to travel on the shoulder of busy congested roadways, where driver inattention and or mistake would be a fatal consequence to a small, not easily seen traveler on a bicycle. The minor inconvenience of a pedestrian on foot, occasionally crossing paths with a bicycle, is not proportionally worth making a bicyclist travel on a dangerous and potentially fatal shoulder of the roadway and does not qualify as a competing social interest.
4. However, prohibition against a responsible adult bicyclist traveling on an empty sidewalk, under threat of violent arrest, detainment, escalating monetary fines, and possible criminal charges once the Police are involved, does not promote public safety, accordingly, their lives and health are put at risk. This is not a minimal impact.
5. The Applicant is not seeking to have the City create more spaces to travel by Bicycles, or expand the streets to create special protected barrier bicycle lanes, the Applicant is not seeking any other expenditure of public funds. The Applicant is simply seeking to have a draconian, unnecessary, abused and misused, vague bylaw to be repealed, so that adult responsible, considerate bicyclists may share the sidewalk with pedestrians in an orderly and satisfactory fashion without being threatened by violent arrest, detainment, escalating monetary fines, and possible criminal charges once the Police are involved, which in no way promotes public safety
http://justicedonedirtcheap.blogspot.ca/
May 3, 2012 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE Brief (New Brunswick Rules of Provincial Court Practice) FORM 3 Regarding: Court File Number: # 93818, BETWEEN THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and ANDRÉ MURRAY
http://justicedonedirtcheap.blogspot.ca/
CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO LIBRARY
INTRODUCTION 1. Democratic values and principles under the Charter demand that legislators and the executive take these into account; and if they fail to do so, courts should stand ready to intervene to protect these democratic values as appropriate. As others have so forcefully stated, judges are not acting undemocratically by intervening when there are indications that a legislative or executive decision was not reached in accordance with the democratic principles mandated by the Charter
2. To respond, it should be emphasized again that our Charter's introduction and the consequential remedial role of the courts were choices of the Canadian people through their elected representatives as part of a redefinition of our democracy. Our constitutional design was refashioned to state that henceforth the legislatures and executive must perform their roles in conformity with the newly conferred constitutional rights and freedoms. That the courts were made the trustees of these rights insofar as disputes arose concerning their interpretation was a necessary part of this new design.
3. So courts, in their trustee or arbiter role, must necessarily scrutinize the work of the legislature and executive not in the name of the courts, but in the interests of the new social contract that was democratically chosen. All of this is implied in the power given to the courts under s. 24 of the Charter and s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. (c) Is the Impact Disproportionate? 39. The impugned City Bylaws affects only bicyclists who may wish, for safety reasons, to use the sidewalk as a path of travel. Bicyclists suffer a disproportionately severe result where they are prevented from traveling on the sidewalk, the alternative being, bicyclists have to travel on the shoulder of busy congested roadways, where driver inattention and or mistake would be a fatal consequence to a small, not easily seen traveler on a bicycle. The minor inconvenience of a pedestrian on foot, occasionally crossing paths with a bicycle, is not proportionally worth making a bicyclist travel on a dangerous and potentially fatal shoulder of the roadway and does not qualify as a competing social interest.
4. However, prohibition against a responsible adult bicyclist traveling on an empty sidewalk, under threat of violent arrest, detainment, escalating monetary fines, and possible criminal charges once the Police are involved, does not promote public safety, accordingly, their lives and health are put at risk. This is not a minimal impact.
5. The Applicant is not seeking to have the City create more spaces to travel by Bicycles, or expand the streets to create special protected barrier bicycle lanes, the Applicant is not seeking any other expenditure of public funds. The Applicant is simply seeking to have a draconian, unnecessary, abused and misused, vague bylaw to be repealed, so that adult responsible, considerate bicyclists may share the sidewalk with pedestrians in an orderly and satisfactory fashion without being threatened by violent arrest, detainment, escalating monetary fines, and possible criminal charges once the Police are involved, which in no way promotes public safety
http://justicedonedirtcheap.blogspot.ca/