The Tender For Law

Volume 13

Feb 10, 2016 4:43 PM

Harry Wombat

I smell some bullshit here and notice some weasel phraseology in response to my inquiry as to whether or not Ontario is some common law jurisdiction. I'd appreciate help breaking this apart.

My intention was to have an "official" communique from the Attorney General's office to establish that Ontario is indeed a common law jurisdiction. It seems to raise more questions than it answers.

My hope here is to put some "powerful" questions to him that will either "force" him to lie (due to his oath to protect the law society), or, have him admit some facts that may serve me/us in the future.

Here's the response:

****

Thank you for your recent inquiry to the Ministry of the Attorney General�s web site about whether Ontario is a common law jurisdiction. I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Ministry.

It is accurate to say that Ontario is a common law jurisdiction, that is, a territory with applicable law based in part on the common law.

The expression �common law� refers to the law developed over the years by judges in deciding court cases. The expression is usually used to distinguish this body of law from �statute law�, i.e. the law adopted in statutes passed by the Legislature or by Parliament for Canada as a whole. However, statute law prevails over common law, so the Legislature can change the common law by passing legislation.

The Legislature�s powers are limited by the Constitution both as to the division of legislative powers between the federal and the provincial government, and by individual rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For example, much of the law about contracts is common law; it arises from court decisions about individual lawsuits that involved contracts. However, the Legislature has passed the Sale of Goods Act (in the late 19th century) and the Consumer Protection Act (in the mid-20th century) to clarify or to improve the rules about contracts, or to make them more accessible to the general public.

In most cases a mix of sources of the law will apply to any situation. Legal rules are not more or less valid because they have more or less common law or statutory content.

The Ministry of the Attorney General publishes several general guides to the law online. General legal information is available at Justice Ontario, the Ministry�s legal information site. To access Justice Ontario, please visit our website at:

www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/justice-ont/

A source of both court decisions and the text of statutes for all of Canada � federal government and the provinces � is www.canlii.org, a product of the Federation of Law Societies.

Once again, thank you for contacting the Ministry.

John D. Gregory General Counsel Justice Policy Development Branch

Policy and Innovation Division Ministry of the Attorney General

Justice Ontario

attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca

Read Comments

Scott Duncan

Let's go through this by paragraph:

"Thank you for your recent inquiry to the Ministry of the Attorney General�s web site about whether Ontario is a common law jurisdiction. I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Ministry."

"I've been asked..." - That doesn't mean that's what they are DOING. They don't actually have the AUTHORITY to "Respond on behalf of the ministry". Who were that asked BY?

Scott Duncan

"The expression �common law� refers to the law developed over the years by judges in deciding court cases. The expression is usually used to distinguish this body of law from �statute law�" - That, of course is a STATUTORY definition, and NOT what COMMON LAW means as regards RIGHTS. COURTS ARE A STATUTORY BODY!

" i.e. the law adopted in statutes passed by the Legislature or by Parliament for Canada as a whole. However, statute law prevails over common law, so the Legislature can change the common law by passing legislation." - Whenever you touch money, you throw away your common law rights for statutory privilege, is basically what is being said here.

Scott Duncan

The rest is just more stuff about common law governing civil matters.

He mostly lies through ommission at the beginning, but he's answered your question (with qualification). I'm not sure you are going to get your "knock out punch" here.

David-Paul Sip

Whoah! "...but It isn't when it comes to US"? :/ I never thought to question this fact let alone take this angle. OMG! So when folks are searching for "remedy" by asking whether Ontario is a common law jurisdiction, they are FUCKED because they're looking at the DATA "Ontario is a common law juridiction" when there's another "layer" which renders the point moot. Is this correct?

David-Paul Sip

"Legal RULES are not more or less valid because they have more or less common law or statutory content."

I notice that he does not write "The LAW is not more or less valid because..." Why did he respond with "Legal rules..."? Or is this not a significant distinction?

Scott Duncan

Let's revise it to LEGAL = THE LAW OF SURETY and ACCOUNTING. Just so we're not confused.

WHICH "LAW" do you speak of when you say "LAW". The word LAW doesn't appear ANYWHERE on government forms, acts, codes, or statutes.

David-Paul Sip

:/ Incredible! This guy had the presence of mind to call "legal" what it actually is (rules) and not refer to it as "the law". Holy shit! This just reminded me of when a "Superior" Court Justice began talking about "Our LAWS" and then corrected herself mid sentence and said "Our rules..." instead.

Harry Wombat

Way back in my 'freedumb" days I recall reading about a hierarchy in law. I'm going back six or seven years so my memory may not serve me, but, as I recall the hierarchy was stated as:

1) The law of nature ( here i am referring to gravity etc.) 2) Ecclesiastical Law 3) Trust Law 4) Common Law (Law of the land) 5) Maritime/Admiralty Law (Acts/Statutes/commercial law)

This is a good time to establish definitively the truth. Is there a hierarchy in law, and if so what is it?