How often have we heard the saying, "Well that's the pot calling the kettle black!"?  Apparently we have been saying it since the 17th century to those of us who accuse others of things of which we are actually guilty.  In other words, if someone is lying about something, they accuse another of being a liar.  Originating in Spain it spawns from a translation of the novel "Don Quixote".   It's a perfect example of psychological projection.

Projection is when a person unconsciously takes unwanted traits or emotions that they don't like about themselves and attributes them to someone else.  Projection is something we all may do at one point or another. Sometimes it's the result of a stressor that triggers it.  If however it is a pattern of behaviour it may be a mental health issue that runs much deeper than simply a stressful day at the office.

* ​CITATION: Duncan v. Buckles, 2021 ONSC 1158
COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-594616
DATE: 20210216

This opinion is not written to discourage anyone from applying sound judgement to civic decisions and critiquing events occurring in their communities.  Discourse surrounding any governmental decision is an important part of our society and part of free speech guaranteed under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Grounded in fact, criticism can set into motion changes that benefit us all and keep our politicians and decision makers on track to do the will of the people.

Have you ever encountered someone who simply cannot take direction from a teacher, a parent, a team member or even a Judge? If this same person hostile towards authority figures, is angry and vindictive towards others and cannot control thier emotions - they may be suffering from Oppositional Defiance Disorder. (ODD)

Oppositional Defiance Disorder usually presents in children and is a behavioural disorder.

According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, "Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) is thought to be caused by a combination of biological, psychological, and social factors. " In many cases with treatment this disorder is resolved as the child gets older and usually within 3 years. Undiagnosed and untreated it may blossom.

Is ODD something one can carry into adulthood? Yes.

Over our lifetimes many of us have encountered individuals who in our view 'throw temper tantrums like a five year old'. The phrases "Grow up!" or "act your age, not your shoe size" is a pretty good indicator that almost everyone has seen someone act as defiant as a young child, foot stomped, lip out, arms crossed - who rebels against any authority.

"Adults with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) feel mad at the world, misunderstood, hemmed in, and pushed around. Their constant opposition to authority figures can make it difficult to keep jobs or maintain relationships and marriages. In other words, ODD interferes with patients’ personal and professional lives and it does so without rest." - Read more here: www.additudemag.com/screener-oppositional-defiant-disorder-symptoms-test-adults/

Now it could be that this person was just angry at the world and had to find someone to blame for the death of their pet.  But if this behaviour was a pattern of blaming others, combined with not accepting the consequences of their own actions, and a vindictiveness aimed towards others - it might be indicators that they are suffering from ODD, or some other anti-social personality disorder.

Mental disorders in our society have always existed.  But in today's world, the ability of someone suffering from a mental disorder has the ability to find an audience - through the internet.  I often wonder if we as a society are able to distinguish inappropriate behaviour and find a way to curb it - so that the people exhibiting symptons can be stopped before they hurt others.

If it truly is ODD that a person is displaying - they need help from a professional.  If it isn't ODD - and simply bad behaviour, perhaps we need to call them out on it so that the problem does not get worse. 

Many years ago, I worked with a counsellor who was holding a seminar on marriage reparation.  Over coffee she explained how she could predict if a marriage was repairable. One of the signs she described that indicated to her that the marriage was in serious trouble, was when one of the couple rolled their eyes when the other was expressing a feeling or recounting an event.  She identified this as contempt.

What is contempt?  Defined by many dictionaries, it incudes defiance, showing disdain and disrespect and a disregard of the rules. It also illustrated by a lack of respect for a person or disregard for something that should be taken into account.

In my time in policing, I had the opportunity to attend court well over a hundred times.  I became aware of a criminal charge called "comtempt of court".  Contempt in a criminal court setting is characterized as disobeying the Judge or showing no respect for the Judge's decisions.  A person can also be found in contempt if they show no respect for the rules or decorum of the court.  We have all seen movies where an accused becomes verbally abusive or assaults a guard and a Judge has them removed from the Courtroom and cites them for contempt -  right from the bench.

It was rare that a Judge cited or convicted someone with "contempt of court" as most Judges were aware that people often did not know all the rules or the consequences of showing contempt by disobeying a Judge.  And the accused usually changed their behaviour once they were made aware of the consequences of doing so.

Civil Court however is a little different than criminal court.  Over the last 6 years, I have watched many court appearances in Civil Court - based on torts and not criminal law.  I have also observed many instances of someone showing contempt for the rules of the court, the rule of law, or the order of a Judge.

When someone flagrantly defies an order of a Judge, a motion can be brought before the court to show the Judge how the person defied the order.  When this happens, the Judge may find the person 'in contempt of court'.  Judges however have no interest in jailing someone for contempt in a civil matter and usually the contempt sentencing includes a fine payable to the court.

An example might be - someone is ordered not to repeat certain phrases that defames another person.  If that someone continues to speak or write the words they are ordered not to speak they may be found in contempt.  A Judge will usually rebuke the person and give them time (2 weeks - 30 days) to make reparations - letting them 'purge' their contempt.  When they return to court for sentencing,  the accused then has the opportunity to show how they have purged the contempt.  A Judge is usually more lenient if someone shows true remorse for their actions that resulted the contempt finding.  It is rare that a person is found in contempt more than a couple of times - especially if they end up paying hefty fines.

We watch too much American TV.

Just ask any Canuck that you know, what drinking and driving is called and they will say "It's a DUI" No it is not. We are Canadian. It is called "Impaired driving" or "operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood" - or 'over 80' in slang format.

The other day someone I know got a speeding ticket - and they wanted to fight it because they didn't want a 'felony' on their record. I almost choked on my "Tim Horton's Double Double".

In Canada there is no such thing as felonies nor are there misdemeanors. Criminal offences are categorized as 'Indictable', 'Summary Conviction' or 'Hybrid' offences. Each determining the seriousness of the offence and the legal process it follows.

Yes. We watch too much American T.V. Over the last several years there has been an incredible amount of coverage on American television of poor police procedures that resulted in not only injuries and deaths, but sparked protests, riots and other civil unrest. Canada has also had news coverage of issues surrounding police procedures - but the issues are much different.

In Canada, police officers are trained much differently than the USA - and I don't know of one contemporary police officer in Canada that was hired and began working as an officer without a lot of training. Canada is unlike in the USA in this respect - where state by state and jurisdiction by jurisdiction, the requirements for hiring and training of police officers is very different. Additionally, none of our 'sheriffs' or chiefs are elected. They must have experience - not popularity. It's a much different system.

​Which brings me to 'arrest', the Canadian way.

To be arrested in Canada by a police officer - the officer must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person they are arresting committed an offence. For example if the police receive a complaint of assault - they do not just hop in the car - activate the siren, race to the accused's home, bust down the door and drag the 'perp' out kicking and screaming all while playing "bad boys, bad boys" in the background.

When you consider the definiton of 'force' and you apply it to say, "being given a ticket that the officer slides between the arm and the torso" - this cannot be called assault as no force was applied.  Especially if the ticket then falls to the ground. Clearly at this point it is safe to assume no force was applied - as the ticket did not remain in the place the officer inserted it.

Other things an officer may consider is the consistency of the complaint that the complainant gave the officer.  If at first the complainant says "the officer shoved it into my man-bag" and then changed the story to "the officer shoved it into my armpit" - the police agency receiving the report may not find the complaint credible.

Either way - if there was no intentional force applied - there was no assault.

How then, can spitting on someone be considered assault?  There was 'force applied intentionally'.  However, if the victim does not complain to the police about the assault - there would be no arrest.  There always has to be a victim in a simple assault.