A man who denied his numerous health violations cannot invoke his “rights and liberties” to avoid paying them, the Quebec court ruled.
“It is not enough for the disaffected citizen to shout ‘freedom’ and take refuge behind the provisions of the charters to challenge the constitutional validity of the laws they dislike,” said Justice of the Peace Dominique Benoit.
Judge Benoit then responded to a motion by the Quebec Attorney General (PGQ) to dismiss the constitutional claims of a man who challenged insults received during the pandemic.
Valmon Boissy was fired by Judge Dominique Benoit after trying to contest the insults he received during the pandemic. FACEBOOK PHOTO from the Valmon Liberté page
In 2021, Valmon Boissy received ten charges, eight for not complying with the curfew and two for not wearing a mask.
The 29-year-old has been very active on social networks during the pandemic, notably appearing on several occasions in the company of anti-vaccination François Amalega Bitondo.
In court, Mr Boissy did not deny the offenses and offered no evidence in defense.
“However, he believes that the health measures imposed by the government violate his rights and freedoms […]. He contends that the measures and the fines to be imposed are unlawful, excessive, unconstitutional and abusive,” the January 6 judgment said.
Multiple disputes
Five times in 2021, the resident of Brossard, on the south coast of Montreal, sent a letter to the PGQ telling him that he specifically wanted to challenge the constitutional validity of the Public Health Act and any health measures enacted by the Quebec government.
He also wanted redress for the violation of his rights and freedoms.
Valmon Boissy was fired by Judge Dominique Benoît while trying to contest his insults received during the pandemic PHOTO Linkedin / Valmon Boissy
In April 2022, in response to the PGQ informing her of the failure to follow her steps, Boissy submitted a new case to prosecutors, also claiming that “the ban [sic] Wearing a mask at a demonstration violates freedom of expression and assembly and is unconstitutional.”
Attached to the document were, among other things, an online petition initiated by Mr. Boissy, comments by the signatories on their rights and freedoms, and newspaper clippings.
“The Court finds no cogent argument in Mr Boissy’s case that would allow for a relevant and serious constitutional debate. What a noise and wind, one would say,” noted Judge Benoit, calling those moves a “tough fishing trip.”
waste of time
According to the judge, “The motions lack any factual or legal basis that would allow for a meaningful debate. Under the circumstances, these requests have no reasonable chance of success.”
The latter therefore accepted AGQ’s application and rejected Mr Boissy’s views on unconstitutionality.
“The desired debate is not narrowed down, would be unnecessarily cumbersome, costly […] It is best to devote limited court resources and hearing time to the cases to be tried,” she explained.
Do you have any information about this story that you would like to share with us?
Do you have a scoop that might be of interest to our readers?