Comeau Beer Case Corroborates Ordinary Employment is Outside Federal Jurisdiction

Anderson Innocent of Paradigm Tax Evasion?
March 27, 2018
Canadian Judge Validates Apus Theory
May 14, 2018
Show all

Comeau Beer Case Corroborates Ordinary Employment is Outside Federal Jurisdiction

The SCC ruled in the Comeau beer case. First, federal jurisdiction is not superior to provincial jurisdiction. Second, everything starts from s.91 (federal jurisdiction) and s.92 (provincial jurisdiction). That corroborates Apu's Theory concluding ordinary employment (s.92(13)) is also outside federal jurisdiction. Picture of Gerald Comeau by Serge Bouchard / Radio-Canada.

The SCC ruled in the Comeau beer case. Federal jurisdiction is not superior to provincial jurisdiction. That corroborates the SCC and Apu’s Theory stating that ordinary employment is outside federal jurisdiction. CRA’s deeming that it isn’t is inferior to your choice. Picture of Gerald Comeau by Serge Bouchard / Radio-Canada.

Comeau Beer Case – Summary

The Comeau beer case corroborates Apu’s Theory on income tax. The Supreme Court of Canada  (“SCC”) ruled federal jurisdiction is not superior to provincial jurisdiction. The SCC and Apu’s Theory both state ordinary employment within the provinces is outside federal jurisdiction. CRA’s deeming that it is not outside their jurisdiction is inferior to your choice. That is why Apu’s Theory concludes income tax is on a federal officer that you choose to represent. Your choice then makes Canada’s income tax legal and constitutional.

Comeau Beer Case – Background

A RCMP sting operation arrested Gérald Comeau when he bought beer in Quebec and took it back to New Brunswick. This is contrary to New Brunswick’s Liquor Control Act. That Act states that, beyond a certain amount, you must purchase liquor only from the New Brunswick Liquor Corporation.

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”), in a 9-0 decision, ruled that New Brunswick’s Liquor Control Act does not infringe on the BNA Act of 1867.

The BNA Act

The 1867 BNA Act formed Canada. It is now called the Constitution Act, 1867. Basically, the provinces agreed to give up certain jurisdictions over to the new federal government to achieve economic union. This means the provinces retained jurisdictions (listed in s.92) over everything else.

BNA Act, s.121

Section 121 states:

121 All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.

The Comeau beer case argues this should mean liquor be admitted free into all other provinces. The question then is, does s.121 trump s.92, the provinces’ retained jurisdictions?

Section 121 Inferior to Jurisdiction Division

Supreme Court of Canada. Picture credit: Apu Nahasapeemapetilon

Supreme Court of Canada. Picture credit: Apu Nahasapeemapetilon

The SCC said no. In the Comeau beer case, R. v. Comeau, 2018 SCC 15, the SCC states:

72 …s. 121’s position in Part VIII, as well as its text, make it clear that it does not confer power, but limits the exercise of the powers conferred on legislatures by ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. … Limits on these powers by provisions like s. 121 must be interpreted in a way that does not deprive Parliament and provincial legislatures of the powers granted to them to deal effectively with problems that arise. Prohibition … engages several of these heads of power, including property and civil rights in s. 92(13).

In other words, everything starts with the jurisdiction division between s.91 and s.92.

Federal and Provincial Jurisdictions Balanced

Paragraph 72 also states:

72 It follows that s. 121 should be interpreted in a way that allows governments to enact proactive policies for the good of their citizens and in a way that maintains an appropriate balance between federal and provincial powers — even if the exercise of those powers may have an incidental effect on other matters, like bringing goods across provincial boundaries.

In short, federal jurisdiction is not superior (“paramount“) to provincial jurisdiction. Hmm, someone should tell the federal government. Oh wait; the SCC just did.

Why Federal Jurisdiction Not Paramount

Paragraph 55 explains why:

55 Historical circumstances surrounding the adoption of s. 121 form part of the contextual interpretation of the provision.

Paragraph 62 then states:

62 To achieve economic union, the framers agreed that individual provinces needed to relinquish their tariff powers.

Remember, the provinces started with total jurisdiction. They only gave up s.91 items (federal jurisdiction) to join Canada. That is why the SCC ruled federal jurisdiction in s. 91 is not paramount to the provinces’ jurisdiction in s. 92.

Ordinary Employment Outside Federal Jurisdiction

This 1936 SCC Reference case  ruled ordinary employment is outside federal jurisdiction. That is why Apu’s Theory also concludes ordinary employment, a property and civil right within the provinces in s.92(13), is outside federal jurisdiction. That is also why Apu’s Theory concludes income tax is on Canada’s “public money” for a federal Canada Pension Plan and/or federal Income Tax Act officer. Your choice makes Canada’s income tax legal and constitutional.

Conclusion

The Comeau beer case means CRA, the courts, and the federal government deeming your income type as Canada’s “public money” (and hence usually taxable income) is not paramount to you claiming your income type as your private property made within a province. Ordinary employment is outside federal jurisdiction. However, recent court cases show they no longer respect the rule of law. This means they will win and you will lose. That is why we call their behaviour financial rape. After all, how many times do you have to say “no”?

#Comeau #FreeTheBeer

Get Your FREE 460-Slide PDF
of Apu's Theory
Get the latest content first.
We do not track you or sell your information.

Share this info!

Apu
Apu

2 Comments

  1. […] Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”), in the recent Comeau “Beer Case” confirms that if there is no overlapping federal jurisdiction, then you must treat provincial […]

  2. […] We documented earlier Canada in a 1936 court case admitting, and the Supreme Court of Canada agreeing, that what they both call “ordinary employment” is outside federal jurisdiction. […]

Leave a Reply