The Chronological Constraint: Structural Obfuscation of Civil Rights Evidence
The BCAA decision on:
- the Charter and Charter Values Applicability
- The New Evidence Motion
- The trial judge biases claim including restrictions on the presentation of my evidence
- Costs.
3. A critical procedural issue raised during my appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal concerned the restriction of my trial presentation strategy by the B.C. Supreme Court. At trial, I requested to present the documentary evidence and discovery admissions thematically—grouping the records for academic freedom for student research and the category of Sunday class abstention. The trial judge rejected this request, directing that the case be presented strictly in a linear, chronological order, asserting that alternative structures were procedurally impermissible or improper. The consequence was the creation of strictly chronological detailing of records that lacked coherence and the very result the student plaintiff sought to avoid.
On appeal, the BCAA dismissed this ground by recharacterizing the trial judge’s directive as mere ‘advice.’ The trial transcripts, however, document a procedural restriction rather than casual guidance. This website’s thematic structure is able to bring the issues and their applicable evidence into a coherent assembling of the evidence. The purely chronological flow is laid out in the 200 or so pages of the BCSC Reasons for Decision for comparison.