Canadian Judge Albert Constantineau published the above law book in 1910. It validates Apus Theory on Canadian individual income tax in over ten ways. Canadian law schools no longer teach his book’s topics. It is partly why we have a broken legal system that no longer obeys the rule of law.
Albert Constantineau was born in 1866 and died in 1944. He earned a Doctor of Civil Law (D.C.L.) degree from Montreal’s McGill University. He later became a judge in Prescott and Russell County in Ontario. It is immediately east of Ottawa. He was also Commissioner for two Commissions (in 1937 and 1940) for the federal government.
In 1910 he published A Treatise on the De Facto Doctrine (“Treatise”). The subtitle is: “In its Relation to Public Officers and Public Corporations Based Upon the English, American, and Canadian Cases Including Comments Upon Extraordinary Legal Remedies in Reference to the Trial of Title to Office and Corporate Existence.”
Treatise is over 800 pages long. In other words, it is thorough. For example, just the Table of Cases is 64 pages. In addition, the Index is 78 pages!
Wikipedia says a D.C.L. degree is, “…a higher doctorate usually awarded on the basis of exceptionally insightful and distinctive publications that contain significant and original contributions to the study of law...”
He did his D.C.L. thesis on offices and officers. Later, at age 44, he expanded that research into Treatise.
That is why the Supreme Court of Canada cites Treatise in Re Manitoba Language Rights,  1 SCR 721, at . That case has been cited 342 times. There is no doubt Treatise is a legal authority by a Canadian judge.
Treatise is a legal authority by a Canadian judge
The subtitle refers to “Office and Corporate Existence”. That alone suggests an office is a form of corporation. Apu’s Theory (Chapter 23) cites legal authorities that a special form of corporation, a corporation sole, is an officer. Apu’s Theory (Chapter 14) also cites, “office and officer are conceptually divisible but legally indivisible.” This corroborates the Meads v. Meads case, where A.C.J. Rooke states at , “If a person wishes to add a legal ‘layer’ to themselves, then a corporation is the proper approach.”
Treatise (section 463) also talks about determining whether a private person has a relation to an office. This conclusively shows that you can be two legal persons: as a private person, and as an officer. This brings up an interesting question: then why do Crown and the courts (including Meads v. Meads) keep insisting that you cannot be two legal persons for individual income tax? The answer could be below.
Treatise: you can be two legal persons
Treatise (sections 246, 314) also states that if you are handling public money, then you must be an officer. Perhaps that is why Crown and the courts refuse to admit that you can be two legal persons. Doing so would then be admitting that your paycheque, CPP, and RRSP are deemed not your private property, but Canada’s public money. After all, most Canadians would find that rather upsetting.
The irony is that Crown prosecutors and judges, being court officers, are two legal persons!
Treatise: if you are handling public money, you must be an officer
These are but three examples of how Treatise validates Apus Theory. There are at least ten more. We will cover them in upcoming seminars.
In conclusion, the Crown and the Courts have been misleading you. People have been thrown in jail for crimes they did not commit. They also have to pay fines and penalties when none legally owe any. That is why we say it is a broken legal system. This is yet another reason why we say Canada no longer obeys the Rule of Law. Needless to say, it is also institutional fraud.
Treatise: validates Apus Theory in over ten different ways
You can download the Treatise here. Seminar attendees will receive a highlighted version. This saves them from having to read all 800 pages!
Share this info!