This is an open letter sent to Steven Bonk, Member Of Parliament for the district of Souris – Moose Mountain, in the evening of October 29th, 2025:
Mr. Bonk,
I am writing you regarding the second reading of Bill C-14 which is scheduled to take place tomorrow. I am concerned that the proposed changes to onus provisions contained in the Criminal Code risk infringing Canadian constitutionality, specifically, our section 11(d) Charter right to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a fair and public hearing.
As you may already know, given all else equal, the burden of proof to show cause why an accused person ought to be denied bail lies with the prosecution. However, these proposed changes tabled in Bill C-14 seek to change this so that a reverse onus is on an accused person where they are “charged with an offense in the commission of which random and unprovoked violence was used or attempted”.
In the absence of a fair trial (as described by the aforementioned Charter right), it is plainly prejudicial for a Justice to determine during a bail review that the commission of the offense is “random and unprovoked”. Provocation is not something customarily determined at the stage of a bail review nor should it be.
A reverse onus should not be placed on the accused to show cause unless, on a balance of probabilities, the risk to public safety in granting bail outweighs any suspected impairment upon the public interest. However, in the absence of bodily harm, accused persons should not be burdened with a reverse onus simply because the allegations are violent in nature.
This is what the proposed changes imply.
Reverse onus provisions must not be changed except with the utmost concern for an accused’s right to a fair trial, as the denial of reasonable bail has been known to impair their ability to make full answer and defense. If Bill C-14 is passed, the onus during bail hearings in violent matters would be de facto on the accused.
As Member of Parliament for Souris – Moose Mountain, please consider these arguments when you represent our district in the House Of Commons tomorrow.
Because justice is a balancing act, the court of law often conducts a test of proportionality in order to ensure that both parties involved are rewarded/punished fairly.
For every transgression, there is an appropriate remedy. For every wrong, there is a corresponding right. And where the court administering the affair prejudices either side, there is a higher court to which an appeal may be brought.
The law can be thought of as a moving target where the customs of the court follow the particular jurisdiction it operates in. What works in one locale may not work in another.
In Saskatchewan, the Crown can only proceed against citizens in good faith and without deceit (Clause 63, Magna Carta). However, they have recently violated this understanding …
On August 2nd, 2023, I was a legal resident of Saskatoon. On that day, the Saskatoon Police Service (SPS) attended my apartment claiming they had a warrant for my arrest, and that if I didn’t open the door, they’d “knock it in”:
“We have a warrant for your arrest.”
SPS Constable Heather Primeau (#727), 241 5th Avenue N in Saskatoon on August 2nd, 2023 9:43 AM
Shortly thereafter, they broke and entered the property, thereby committing a home invasion:
Aggravating circumstance — home invasion If a person is convicted of 348 in relation to a dwelling-house, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the dwelling-house was occupied at the time of the commission of the offence and that the person, in committing the offence, (a) knew that the dwelling-house was occupied; and (b) used threats of violence to property.
Section 348.1, Criminal Code
SPS Constable Kevin Sanderson (#884) broke and entered my apartment on August 2nd, 2023.
Weidner Apartment Homes Apartment #502 located at 241 5th Avenue North in Saskatoon was broken into on August 2nd, 2023.
Entrance “For the purposes of sections 348 and 349, a person enters as soon as any part of his body or any part of an instrument that he uses is within any thing that is being entered; and a person shall be deemed to have broken and entered if he obtained entrance by collusion with a person therein”
– Section 350, Criminal Code
However, during trialconducted voir dire on May 6th, 2024, the Saskatoon Police Service testified that they had no warrant in the matter.
That type of threat to my property, combined with them breaking and entering the apartment, is enough to nullify any claim that my actions were not the result of oppressive circumstances.
Without a warrant, the Saskatoon Police Service had no right to conduct themselves the way they did.
I was led to believe that the SPS was executing an arrest warrant, a warrant that, after hearing testimony from SPS Detective Sergeant Tracy Shepherd (#556, Hate Crimes Unit), didn’t exist.
Saskatoon Police Service (SPS)
I surrendered myself into their custody under duress and reserve a common law defense in relation to these proceedings for doing so:
Common law principles continued “Every rule and principle of the common law that renders any circumstance a justification or excuse for an act or a defence to the charge continues in force and applies in respect of proceedings for an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament except in so far as they are altered by or are inconsistent with this Act or any other Act of Parliament.”
Section 8(3), Criminal Code of Canada
On May 6th, 2024, I cross-examined Saskatoon peace officer Heather Primeau about this, who swore an oath to tell the truth, then immediately proceeded to testify falsely against me under that oath. She claimed to have “never” threatened to knock in my door, but I know otherwise …
“Thou shall not testify falsely against thy neighbor”.
Exodus 20:16
The Saskatoon Police Service (SPS) has proceeded in this matter mala fide (in bad faith).
Therefore, on August 29th, 2024, I made an application before Justice MacMillan-Brown to quash the warrant of committal (order #95300896) in furtherance of my right to a fair trial in the matter. Pursuant section 778(c) of the Criminal Code, a common law writ of certiorari is sufficient to quash the warrant of committal on the grounds that the omission to provide a fair trial in the matter has been the cause of persecution.
The Justice presiding dismissed that application. Instead, their fiat order dated September 2nd, 2024 insults my ability to communicate this grievance …
Because of Saskatchewan’s superior court dismissing this application, the innocent blood of a political party leader has been spilled.
That’s the real crime …
The prosecution related to this information was political in nature as none of the allegations were violent. Rather than being about public safety, these proceedings have been adversarial to Canadian nationalism.
There is a war of deception being waged against our nation. The intention is to transition Canada into the “world’s first post-national country”. In order to do so, the Crown is effecting an unwarranted demographic change of our founding population, predominantly through immigration policy to which there exists no democratic mechanism to alter.
As described in section 13 of the Crimes Against Humanity & War Crimes Act, obedience to de facto authority is no justification here …
Conflict with internal law Despite section 15 of the Criminal Code, it is not a justification with respect to political persecution that the offense was committed in obedience to or in conformity with the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.
Section 13, Crimes Against Humanity & War Crimes Act
‘The sun-lord inclined her head. “I may not forbid you to carry on the work of your ancestors,” she said. “This is part of the Law pertaining to your kind …”‘
