1. Subsection of the Statute in question,
2. Definition section of the Statute in question,
3. Definition section of Statutes having the same "subject" matter,
4. Interpretation Act,
5. Canadian Law Dictionary (Canadian),
6. Oxford Dictionary of Law (British),
7. Black's Law Dictionary (American),
8. Canadian English Dictionary.

In every enactment
person, or any word descriptive of a person, includes a corporation;

person 1. A human being. 2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. 3. The living body of a human being <contraband found on the smuggler's person>.

From this general definition you will see that person includes both human beings and entities (corporations and other legal entities). However in the IA, person could have been defined as above, but it was not done so, creating doubt as to its interpretation. A restrictive definition would ensure that most Statutes only apply to CORPORATIONS (artificial-persons) so as not to infringe on the natural-person's fundamental rights and freedoms as outlined in the Magna Charta, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, however it now appears that each natural-person must fight for and protect his human rights as they are no longer protected by the rule of law. Tyranny is the ultimate result of such corrupt government practices which appear to exist world-wide.

Here is a very interesting excerpt from "American Law and Procedure", (1910) Vol.13, pp. 137-162:

"This word 'person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use...

The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar reference to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals...

A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested...not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons...The law of persons is the law of status or condition.

A moment's reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes.

This is his personality...that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations."

American Law and Procedure, (1910) Vol. 13, pp. 137-162.

Approved February 10, 1939 section 3797 crossed with meaning of "person" from Public Salary Tax Act 1939
SEC. 144. PAYMENT OF CORPORATION INCOME TAX AT SOURCE. SEC. 145.
PENALTIES.
(a) FAILURE TO FILE RETURNS, SUBMIT INFORMATION, OR PAY TAX.-Any
person required .
(b) FAILURE TO COLLECT AND PAY OVER TAX, OR ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT OR EVADE TAX.-Any person required .
(c) PERSON DEFINED.-The term "person" as used in this section includes an officer or employee of a corporation or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

What are the Schools Teaching?:

It is sad to see what the schools are teaching to those in the Faculty of Law. It appears that those institutions condone slavery and do not understand the basic concept of the legal reasoning. Here is an excerpt from a reply concerning the definition of "includes" as well as whether or not a human being was "governed by the state". Read em & weep:

Begin Quote:

The word 'includes' in a statute is not restrictive. So, person means
person (as we would commonly understand that word) AND includes people who administer taxes on behalf of largely dead persons and corporations and exempt entities. But you don't need the convoluted analysis around needing a trustee and so on. A person is a person under the legislation.

Lastly, the 'legal fiction' concept is not about human beings - over
which the state governs. (There is no distinction between common law
and statutory law in this way - it is all made and enforced by the state
- whether through judges or legislators of a combination - all state
actors, but in different branches of government.) Instead, it's used to
connote the status granted by the state to corporations that gives them
the ability (as non-humans) to enter into contracts and obtain other
legal benefits despite the fact that the corporation itself isn't a
human being.

UBC Faculty of Law

End Quote

Look at the above words "person means person (as we would commonly understand that word) AND includes people ..." essetially ignorning the heirarchy of Definitions, and attempting to re-define "includes" contrary to Sullivan & Driedger on the Construction of Statutes. See the Third Trick for clarification.

Look at the condoning of slavery in the above words "human beings - over which the state governs" and you should be concerned that the UBC Faculty of Law states that the state has dominion to govern human beings.

Is there any hope for our freedoms when lawyers are being taught this drivel?

SHALL replaced with MUST:

Recently, in Canada, the Department of Justice has given some "Direction" to replace the word "shall" with the word "must", citing ambiguity of "shall". Here is a link to their "Direction":

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/legis-redact/legistics/p1p8.html

RE-INSERTED TEXT WHICH DISAPPEARED:

DEFINITIONS:
Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary does not provide definitions for "include" or "means" therefore we have to look in the next 'source' for the definitions. From Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition, here is the definition for the word "include": include. To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve.
including. may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of 'and' or 'in addition to', or merely specify a particular thing already included within the general words theretofore used.
inclose. To surround; to encompass; to bound; fence; or hem in, on all sides.

It is stated in the above definition that the verb INCLUDE only has limited scope. On the other hand the participle, INCLUDING (but not limited to) enlarges the scope. When used in a definition, INCLUDE does not expand the existing definition of the word. It is easy to confuse because we naturally assume the existing definition of the word, then assume INCLUDE means to add this new interpretation to the existing assumed definition of the word. Our assumptions fail us in this case. From now on, when you see the word INCLUDES, mentally substitute the word MEANS and you will not be "tricked" by this definition anymore.

Comment from DetaxCanada: Regarding Item 3 & 4: There have been a lot of US cases where this has been the argument, and the judges all come back with the fact that the term has to be taken in context, and that if others are mentioned within The text, then the meaning means “also includes”, or “includes but not limited to”.

So, that argument has always failed.

May I suggest the following replacement for Articles 3 & 4:

THE NAME GAME

3: The primary trap laid by the legal world in their parliamentary statutes and court system is by the “name game”. When one was born, one’s parents were coerced into “registering” the live birth with(originally the county, and later in Provincial Vital Statistics) . Register comes from the Latin, Regis,(the King or Queen). Thus, the act of registering is the ‘offering up” of the child to the King. Upon that form, one finds a space for “given names” and one for the family name, called the “surname”. Now, look up the definition of “sur” in any dictionary, and you will find that it means “over, above, superior,primary”. Historically, a “family” name was a referential name (inferior to) for the  “given” names.

Thus, a name with a surname attached is a fiction, a creation and intellectual property of government.

This is the name that is imprinted on the birth certificate, a copy of which you get when you order that document from Vital Statistics and pay the fee. If it were YOUR birth certificate, you wouldn’t have to pay for the copy, and you would be able to redeem the original.

The birth certificate is a negotiable instrument sold to the international bankers as offered collateral(the future labour of the associated human body) in the national bankruptcy. Since the named entityon the birth certificate is thus a DEBTOR, the name is changed to an “all caps” spelling as a codefor legal purposes. It is not the “all caps” spelling that indicates the fictional entity/strawman - it is the family name being made a “surname”.

As with insurance calculations on odds of longevity, the Crown estimates an amount of projected labour the individual human may have, and bestows a credit upon that particular surname with referential given names, and then proceeds to use those credits for government borrowing from theInternational bankers. All “currency” is “credits”. There is no real money - valuable metal money and“I.O.U.s” called “promissory note currency” based upon the hard money.

All taxes, including income tax, is the governments’ methods to extract that only asset that is notalready encumbered and promised by the bankrupt corporate government. And, since the servant,the government, cannot take the King’s (free will adult humans’) money to pay their debts, or get more credits from the bankers, they deceive people into believing/accepting/acknowledging that they are “one and the same” as the fiction surname and referential given names createdand owned by government/Crown.

WHAT ABOUT “OUR” NAME?

Names are “given” to the child by its parents. Given names are the real “surname”. The “family” name is inherited, and is a reference names to the surnames. But, there is a catch. A “gift” is a form of “contract”. A contract must have an offerer (offer) and acceptor or receiver (acceptance), both of which must be voluntary by all parties concerned. A minor cannot be party to a contract - so the gift of a name cannot lawfully be accepted by the infant. And no adult has ever done anything to “accept” the given names upon reaching adulthood (majority). Thus, adult humans do not have a name or number -they (we) only have nick-names or commonly-called names.

It can be further noted that an adult human cannot have a name, as only “things” have names. An adult human is a free-will mind occupying a human body. A mind is not a “thing”, but is only a“process” – the interaction of electrons within a human brain – an electro-chemical computer.

When we say: “I” or “I am”, or “I will”, it is your mind that is the source of such a statement, not your physical body. Thus, the only lawful name we can give ourselves is “I” or “Me”. All others are, fiction, and mostly “hearsay”, as others told us in times past.

FOR THE DOUBTING THOMAS:
If you look into any statute, you will be able to find a definition that uses the word INCLUDES and when you attempt to broaden the scope of that word, the statute will break down because it will not be able to support the inclusion of the ordinary meaning of the word.

Today we live in a world where we are told that our fundamental rights still exist, but there are times when we wonder how this can be so. For example, we can have the full force of the law brought down upon us with a traffic violation, income tax regularity, refusing to fill in census forms, etc. These offences do no harm to another human being and in no way violate any individuals fundamental rights and freedoms, so we ask "how can this be?"

The answer is that your fundamental rights and freedoms are still intact as a natural-person, but you have been tricked into believing that you have to follow the Laws created for the artificial-person.

Following the Second World War, the United Nations Assembly prepared the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

I have never seen this done in any school. Have you?


In order to implement SLAVERY of its citizens and control them according to its whim, the government had to invent a system that would not violate a human-being's fundamental rights, but would allow the government to "own" everything produced organized by its citizens. The technique used by the government was to create a CORPORATION for every human-being in Canada. As creator of a so-called CORPORATION, the government can demand anything it wants from the CORPORATION. As a legal entity, a corporation does not have feelings and cannot be hurt. It can be subject to slavery and complete domination by it creators and the corporation must obey its creator. These corporations must then have a business number and so one is assigned to each PERSON it creates.

Such a "business" number is called a S.I.N. (Slave Identification Number aka Social Insurance Number)

Finally, the government needs to appoint an Officer of the CORPORATION to run the day-to-day activities. Such a position requires a contract since the Officer will be held accountable for the actions of the CORPORATION. So, the government tricks John Doe to become the Officer for the JOHN DOE corporation by signing such contracts as Driver's License, Bank Accounts, Citizenship Cards, Passports, etc.

In the 'Income Tax Act', the government just decrees that John Doe is the legal Representative for the Officer of the JOHN DOE Corporation and the only contract involved in the annual Income Tax Return (yes it is a contract for one year) wherein John Doe gives his agreement as Officer of JOHN DOE for the previous year. Unfortunately John Doe does not know that he is acting as an Officer for the JOHN DOE corporation and must therefore follow the rules imposed upon JOHN DOE. Hence the confusion sets in because John Doe believes that he is "the same as" JOHN DOE and therefore has to forfeit his rights and duties upon demand by the government and its officials.

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"
(Preamble - Universal Declaration of Human Rights)