Court file no. AH08331530-1

Kelowna Registry


In the Provincial Court of British Columbia







Office(s) of the Attorney General(s) and others,

Prosecutor(s), Respondent(s)









David Hunter Thomson

Defendant, Applicant.





Notice to Admit

Rule 31 – Form 23







David Hunter Thomson

725 Franklyn Rd.

Kelowna, British Columbia


250 765-6826

fax 250 765-6813










                                                                                                            Court file no. AH08331530-1

Kelowna Registry


In the Supreme Court of British Columbia





Office(s) of the Attorney General(s) and others

Prosecutor(s), Respondent(s),









David Hunter Thomson

Respondent, Applicant.



Notice to Admit

Form 23 - Rule 31 



            TAKE NOTICE that the Respondent, David-Hunter: Thomson requests the Prosecutor, Bryant Mackey, for the purpose of this proceedings only, the facts set out below and the authenticity of the documents referred to below, copies of which are attached.


AND TAKE NOTICE that, unless the court otherwise orders, if the part to whom this notice is directed does not deliver a written statement, as provided in Rule 31 (2) within 14 days after delivery of a copy of this notice to him or her, then the truth of the facts and the authenticity of the documents shall be deemed to be admitted.


Dated…………………………………..                                 ………………………………………                                                                                                            David-Hunter Thomson

The facts, the admission of which is requested are:


1.   You are the Constitutional Barrister, appointed by the Office of the Attorney General for the Province of British Columbia, to oppose me in this matter.

2.   The Province can issue licenses because s. 92(9) of the British North America Act, 1867 says Provinces may make laws to issue licenses to raise Provincial Revenue. Provinces may issue licenses for shops, taverns, saloons, auctioneers and any other licenses, like driver's licenses and law licenses. 


3.   On January 23.03, Associate Chief Judge Hugh Stansfield said a license to practice law under the Legal Profession Act - a license granted under that Act was a "right" and gave the licensee the "right" to practice law.  R. v. Eisbrenner - Penticton Provincial Court.


4.   Driver's Licenses are issued under a statute, probably the Motor Vehicle Act or the Highway Traffic Act.


5.   Drivers licenses and law licenses both come from the same branch of the B.N.A. Act, 1867? Or is it your position that rights and privileges, like apples and oranges, both grow from the same branch?


6.   A privilege, such as solicitor-client privilege clearly denotes powerful rights.


  1. The Court of Appeal has been wrong before. In a case called Reference Re: Section 6 of the Family Relations Act, the B.C. Court of Appeal said a Provincial Court Judge did not have 6 specific powers - powers that were given to Judges by that statute. 


  1. The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada.  That Court contradicted the Court of Appeal - and gave Judges 4 of the 6 powers that the statute empowered them to do.


  1. It’s been published in The Advocate, July 1998, Volume 56, # 4.



  1. Later, at least 2 Provincial Court Judges took those other 2 powers back, even though the Supreme Court of Canada said they could not have them or use them to help families in crisis, using the Law and Equity Act.


  1. Section 1 of that Act says it applies to all courts.


  1. The Provincial Court has jurisdiction under the Law and Equity Act, to apply Principles and Rules of Equity?


  1. British North America Act, 1867 says that Provinces are to provide for their own courts.


  1. We do have provincial courts, courts of equity that have been considered equal to all courts, not to be “bound by the decision of another court.


15. A 1988 ruling by Supreme Court Justice McEachern  effectively “bound” our provincial court judges, preventing them from providing relief for aggrieved children and families.


16. Provincial Court judges have been vocal in their unhappiness, “bound” from providing relief to aggrieved children and families that they find before them.


17. On January 23 .03, Associate Chief Judge Hugh Stansfield admitted that he was the first to acknowledge, his understanding of Provincial Court jurisdiction was “unclear”, “grey” and “blurry”. He also acknowledged that those jurisdictional arguments raised, were legitimate ones. R. v. Eisbrenner - Penticton Provincial Court.


18. On March 17 .03, also in Penticton Provincial Court, Gayle Sinclair said that he was “not competent” to rule on constitutional submissions and that Judge Stansfield, “God bless him”, now Chief Justice Stansfield, is the only Provincial Court Judge who is competent to preside over Constitutional issues.


19. These are all issues that are in the best interests of the public to be resolved.


20. You are a Barrister, licensed to practice law in the Province of British Columbia.


21. When engaged as a Crown prosecutor, a lawyer’s primary duty is not to seek a conviction but to see that justice is done and should make timely disclosure of all facts and known witnesses whether tending to show guilt or innocence.


  1. The purpose of our laws are to “protect the safety and well-being of children and families” and that it is a primary and fundamental tenet of law.


  1. Concerns over the safety and well-being of children and families is not

 “frivolous and vexatious”


24. The primary function of any Barrister is to apply the law to all the relevant facts to any given matter that is set out before him or her in his or her professional capacity.


  1. In order to become a duly licensed Barrister, you did swear an Oath, enshrined

in such principles as the protection and well-being of children and families.


26. You are bound in your duty, set out in the Legal Profession Act.


27. You are bound to uphold all sections of the Criminal Code of Canada.


  1. Any attempt to obstruct my effort falls under Part IV of the Criminal Code – “Offences Against the Administration of Justice”.


29. You have a duty to assist me in seeking all remedies, afforded by law and equity, according to the facts, as are supported by the substantial evidence that I have put before you.


Back to my challenge.