Name style affects legal meaning. Canada’s Department of Justice paperwork shows my name style in full upper case (“ERIC HO”) is legally different from my name style in upper and lower case (“Eric Ho”). The name style also seems linked to my property rights, such as whether I have legal ownership of my property, including my income.
After CRA executed a search warrant, I demanded CRA return my private property. Canada’s Department of Justice (“DoJ”) replied for CRA: if I sign and return their proposed court order, that would then force CRA to return my “items” from my “residence”.
Here is DoJ’s letter:
Here is DoJ’s proposed court order. Note they propose my name style to be in full upper case letters, as “ERIC HO”, and that by signing, I am approving it “as to form” :
I scanned their proposed court order, and then changed:
Only one week later, the DoJ responded:
The DoJ then included the proposed court order again, with:
Bolding the name reset to ERIC HO shows that the DoJ took time to ensure that they will only accept the name style in full upper case. This was deliberate and not just a random coincidence!
The divorce case of Meads v. Meads says at paragraph 323:
“there is no legal distinction between a name in upper case and lower case letters, and a name all in capital letters: R. v. Linehan, 2000 ABQB 815 at para. 13, 276 A.R. 383; R. v. Loosdrecht , 2008 BCPC 400 at para. 36,  4 C.T.C. 49; R. v. Lemieux, 2007 SKPC 135 at paras. 45- 46,  2 C.T.C. 291”
If that is true, then why did the DoJ insist twice on using only the full upper case name style?
And if Meads cannot be trusted on the name style issue, it throws the rest of Meads into disrepute. That’s a problem for Canada as, to date, Meads has been cited 187 times. In fact, I just heard someone is suing Canada over Meads being used willy-nilly to shut down anyone in court who asks questions the DoJ doesn’t like.
My paperwork also fits Apu’s Theory. It concludes a name style in full upper case is often used to help identify an individual representing an ITA “officer”, with that office’s income being Canada’s “public money”. If Apu’s Theory is correct, Canada then deems it has legal ownership to ERIC HO’s income (and becomes taxable).
The above paperwork can be downloaded here (10-page PDF, 2.6 MB file).
In conclusion, despite repeated denials by CRA, the DoJ, and the courts, this paperwork shows Canada’s DoJ considers the name style to affect the legal meanings, and therefore the legal property rights, of individuals.