administration of justice

#KnowYourRights
#Bravo

sheiky3rbouti

this video is going to be talking about
the administration of justice I'm
releasing it in order to help
individuals who are seeking to obtain
the enforcement of their own fundamental
rights and freedoms here in Canada it's
not meant as legal advice it's just
meant to help human beings enforce their
fundamental rights and freedoms now we
have come to learn over our studies that
the administration of justice means to
uphold fundamental rights and freedoms
charter rights common law rights better
known as natural rights if you don't
know what I'm talking about then I think
you should watch some of my prior videos
before continue on watching this video
now common law in Canada now develops in
accordance with the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms better known as the
constitution act of nineteen eighty-two
when you look into Supreme Court it has
made it clear in cases m.a vs ryan that
common law must develop in accordance
with charter values that the common law
trespass equals in an infringement or
denial of a fundamental right or freedom
here we find the Supreme Court declaring
that common law must develop in
accordance with the Charter first we
must note that it is a superior court or
supreme court making this declaration so
if we go into Superior Court we must
prove a common law denial by proving a
charter infringement we are also seeking
the administration of justice as we have
seen declared in the following judgment
in Gerald Mitchell this is from the
Supreme Court of Canada he states that
the administration of justice and I grow
down according to grant it means the
term administration of justice in
section 24 of the Charter concerns
maintaining the rule of law and his
process and includes upholding charter
rights in the justice system as a whole
so when you use a term and I'm seeking
the administration of justice
what you are saying is you are seeking
to uphold your charter rights within the
justice system you are seeking to uphold
your common law rights within the
judicial as we know common law does
indeed exist in canada when you look
into the interpretation act of Canada
under article 8 you find that it states
that property and civil rights exist in
canada either common law wise or civil
lee wives so they mentioned that two of
them exists then when you go into the
Quebec Civil Code the preamble before
you read the code itself it specifically
says that the Quebec civil code is an
expression of your comment which means
common law whether directly mentioned in
the in the code itself or implicitly
mentioned which means it's hidden in
there so if you understand what common
law was and you were reading the Quebec
Civil Code you'd be able to pull out the
articles of law that dealt with common
law now many people understand who are
looking for their rights and freedoms
that there is such a thing as common law
in Canada but the question comes where
is it and how do we defend them how do
we defend our common law rights now when
we look to the Supreme Court of Canada
that's a judgment from the Supreme Court
of Canada and ma vs Ryan it teaches us
that common law in 2015 actually this
would be from 1982 that this would be
going back because that's when the
Charter came into existence in Canada
but the Supreme Court of Canada is
teaching us that common law must develop
in accordance with the Charter so it's
not as fact that there is not common law
in Canada there is common law and
however now it is expressed through the
Charter so our common law rights that
have been in existence for many many
many generations are now expressed
through the Charter and actually goes
deeper it says that a trespass in common
law now will be an infringement of our
fundamental right or freedom so common
law
rights are now enforced or now flow
through charter rights and these rights
in Canada can be infringed or denied the
executive powers they can create
enactments or regulations that infringe
or deny your common law rights your
charter rights now Gerald Mitchell of
the Supreme Court of Canada did an
exposition upon this and he wrote that
anyone who is seeking to enforce their
charter rights are actually seeking the
administration of justice because common
law rights are first and foremost if you
understand common law fundamental rights
and freedoms natural law fundamental law
these are all first and primary rights
that man can express that a woman can
express now second to this are
enactments and regulations so when we
come to seeking the enforcement of our
fundamental rights and freedoms it
disturb the administration of justice
that's what we are looking for we are
saying that an enactment or a regulation
has gone against our fundamental rights
and freedoms and therefore we are
seeking the administration of justice we
as individuals are seeking to have our
fundamental rights and freedoms here in
Canada respected we have come to realize
that the executive powers are denying
them and infringing upon them and we are
seeking the administration of justice
many of us have contacted and will
probably contact the office of the
Attorney General of Canada concerning
our fundamental rights and freedoms this
office has the superintendence over the
administration of justice the office is
charged with the duty to uphold and
attend to all matters as it pertains to
the administration of justice now when
you look in the federal Department of
Justice Act you find the following in
article for the minister meaning the
Attorney General is official legal
advisor of the Governor General and the
legal member of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada and shall see that
the administration of Public Affairs is
in accordance with law
that deals with the democratic society
and then secondarily he shall have the
superintendence of all matters connected
with the administration of justice in
Canada not within the jurisdiction of
the governments of the province so the
federal Attorney General of Canada has
the power has superintending power over
all matters you see that all matters
connected specifically with the
administration of justice however these
matters must not be under the provincial
jurisdiction the minister who is also
the Attorney General is responsible for
superintendents of all matters connected
with the administration of justice these
matters must not be under the provincial
government's responsibility so the
administration of justice is flowing
from the minister of justice he has
superintending powers over all matters
that are not under the control of the
provincial government this verse is
declaring that when an individual is
seeking the administration of justice
that there are times that the justice
will be obtained through through the
provincial means or provincial courts
then there are other times when the
office of the federal Attorney General
is the means to obtain justice when we
look at the statute and regulations from
the federal enactments called the
Department of Justice or when we look
into the provincial one called the
Department of Justice enactment we find
federally that there is a do a title or
a designation called the federal
Attorney General and in the provincial
there's someone called the provincial
Attorney General now you saw that both
of these offices have been charged with
the administration of justice so they're
both responsible for upholding charter
rights our fundamental rights and
freedoms within Canada now it
specifically says that the federal
Attorney General deals with the
administration of justice that is not
under the control
of the provincial Attorney General and
then it specifically states that the
provincial Attorney General deals with
the administration of justice that is
not under the control of the federal
Attorney General so both of these
offices have their duties and their
responsibilities to uphold our
fundamental rights and freedoms for the
administration of justice but you have
to be careful because again there's a
distinction the federal Attorney General
deals with matters that are not under
the care of the provincial attorney and
the provincial attorney general deals
with the administration of justice
that's not under the care of the federal
Attorney General so if you have a
problem and you contact the wrong
Attorney General you won't get the
response that you're looking for for
example if you have a problem and the
administration of justice lies within
the provincial Attorney General but yet
you contact the federal Attorney General
you're not going to receive the response
you're looking for and vice versa if the
administration of justice slides within
the federal Attorney General it was a
federal enactment but yet you contacted
the provincial you won't get the
response you're looking for so we have
two offices that are charged with the
duties concerning the administration of
justice we have the federal Attorney
General and we have the provincial
Attorney General now for any individual
who's seeking to exercise their
fundamental rights and freedoms they
have to discern and figure out what is
under the federal Attorney General's
control and what is under the provincial
Attorney General's control you'd have to
go into the constitution act of Canada
1867 in article 91 there you will find
the matters the subject matters
concerning what the federal Attorney
General is under control what he has
control of constitution act 1867 article
91 when when you look there you will see
a list of all the matters that the
federal Attorney General has control of
same thing you'd have to go to the con
stitute an act of 1867 article 92 to
check what the provincial Attorney
General has control of because there you
will see the provincial powers have been
delegated to the provincial legislators
and they will be creating provincial
anak miss and if these provincial
enactments breach your rights your
fundamental rights and freedoms then you
have to go after the provincial Attorney
General but if you look and it's a
federal enactment that is breaching your
fundamental rights and freedoms then you
have to go after the federal Attorney
General so it's very important that you
discern the situation who has control of
the situation what enactment is tripping
me is removing my fundamental right and
freedom is it a federal enactment or is
it a provincial enactment then I will
know where to target my attack for the
administration of justice now each
subsequent province has the Department
of Justice enactment and we look into
the duties of the minister the minister
is the official legal advisor of the
lieutenant governor and the legal member
of the Executive Council now the
Attorney General here it's mentioned
that he is the legal advisor of the
lieutenant governor and the lieutenant
governor is a representative of the
queen now also the Attorney General is a
legal member of the Executive Council
you see that the executive council is
part of the ones that are here in
control of Canada that are governing
Canada but yet he's also in charge of
the administration of justice talk about
putting being put in a weird situation
now the provincial Attorney General
shall see that the administration of
Public Affairs is in accordance with the
law and shall have super powers shall
superintend all matters connected with
the administration of justice in the
province that are not within the
jurisdiction of the Government of Canada
so again we see the distinction the
federal Attorney General of Canada has
powers to deal with the administration
of justice if the problem is not under
provincial to
restriction and the provincial Attorney
General has powers to deal with the
administration of justice if the matter
is not under the control of the
government of canada meaning the federal
attorney-general now the governor is a
point the Attorney General of Canada and
I used Manitoba here for an example and
Attorney General of Manitoba and they
are charged with the administration of
justice the Attorney General of Canada
and also the Attorney General of
Manitoba is charged with the
administration of justice now we're not
talking about the individual men who are
sitting in these offices because those
were all change term by term or whatever
it is however what we're talking about
is the office itself an office is
controlled by an enactment or a
regulation the duties and
responsibilities that an office has is
brought forth through an enactment and a
regulation and we just saw through both
enactments in the Department of Justice
enactment that both of these Attorney
General's have been charged to
superintend over all matters concerning
the administration of justice concerning
upholding charter rights and fundamental
freedoms we know that Her Majesty has
the obligation to respect and ensure our
fundamental rights and freedoms as found
an international and domestic law we see
that this obligation is imposed upon the
offices of the Attorney General's by
charging these offices with the
responsibility of the administration of
justice administration of justice means
upholding fundamental rights and
freedoms charter rights the Minister of
Justice has been charged with this
responsibility the provincial government
has this responsibility also looking
back into the enactment we see the
following duties and responsibilities
coming out upon the office of the
federal attorney-general the Minister of
Justice now the Department of Justice
Act minister and Attorney General the
minister is ex officio Her Majesty's
Attorney General of Canada holds office
during pleasure and has the management
and direction of the
apartment the minister is the official
legal advisor of the governor-general
and the legal member of the Queen Privy
Council for Canada so you see the
Attorney General is Her Majesty's
attorney he's also the legal adviser to
the governor-general and he's the legal
adviser to the Queen's Privy Council
this office is playing multiple roles
while these duties it handled with honor
and care complement one another and
allow the individual playing the role to
accomplish the administration of justice
this office can also be used to hinder
the expression of justice this office is
under obligation to ensure and protect
fundamental rights and freedoms yet this
office is also the legal adviser of the
clean and the crown further to this this
office of the Attorney General has
regulation and conduct in all litigation
against the crown or any Department of
the crown so the power to do right or
what or wrong is present within the
duties and responsibilities The Powers
That dis office exercises okay so within
your local province it doesn't matter
what province you are in you have your
provincial Attorney General now we want
to look at the court structure that's
operating within the provinces to see
what's transpiring you have statutory
chords so what is a statutory court a
lot of people ask that question a
statutory court is set up by enactments
and regulations that's where it has its
power it can only follow the rules and
law of the enactments and regulations
now for example a traffic court the
traffic court would be considered a
statutory court I go in there and it can
only deal with one matter my ticket
that's it of course on the other hand it
should fit in the administration of
justice but that's not what taught what
we're talking about we're talking about
the fact that it's just a statutory
court so for example I'm under private
contract with somebody and I have a
disagreement with them concerning that
contract I wouldn't tell them okay
listen fix up this problem right now or
I'm going to take you to traffic
court because I have a civil disagree
and disagreement with you it wouldn't
work I couldn't go to traffic court and
say hey judge i propped this guy
promised to do a whole bunch of work for
me I paid him half an advanced and he
never did the work for me took my money
and he left the guy would say oh well I
can't hear your case this is nothing to
do with tickets so a statutory court can
only deal with a certain matter for
example again traffic now also in our
provinces we have something that's
called the Superior Court of the
province now this is a court that can
deal with the inherent jurisdiction that
can deal with the administration of
justice straight up and front it has the
power to deal with our fundamental
rights and freedoms now getting back to
the statutory court and I'm going to get
into the Superior Court a bit more but
getting back to the statute stepstool
record when he studied the Supreme Court
of Canada and you see concerning the
administration of justice it
specifically teaches us that a statutory
court if we go in there before them
seeking to exercise our rights or
seeking the administration of justice
they're supposed to they're supposed to
fit in to the existing scheme that is
going on our administration of justice
so you walk in there and you say listen
I believe this enactment has stripped me
of my fundamental right and freedom I
don't think it's any of any force or
effect against me according to the
constitution act of canada article 52
and here's the reason why now when the
judge hears you out he he's supposed to
be able to say yeah you know what that's
not no force or effect against you I'm
not in validating the legislation get on
out of here I'm dismissing the ticket
that's he has the power to do that a
statutory court do they do it sometimes
sometimes not I see a lot of times when
they do do it and I see other times when
they don't do it when the judge is being
hard up where oh yes my court and I'm
not going to administrate justice here
what he's actually saying is that if I
screw you hear that you're going to have
to go here and most people don't
understand how to go here and don't know
the powers of this court but a statutory
court should be fitting in the
administration of justice when it comes
to our claiming there's been an
infringement or denial of
fundamental rights and freedoms but
above that the Superior Court has all
power in your province if you have a
problem with your province enactment
because it stripped you of a fundamental
right and freedom the provincial
Attorney General has the power to deal
with the administration of justice and
when we look into the court system we're
going to find that this is a very
powerful court to operate on my behalf
and your behalf the Attorney General of
Canada article 5 is charged with the
settlement and approval of all
instruments issued under the great seal
and shall have the regulation and
conduct of all litigation for or against
the crown or any Department in respect
of any subject within the authority or
jurisdiction of Canada the Attorney
General is to address the situation if
your fundamental rights and freedoms
have been infringed yet the office is
also Her Majesty's legal counsel and the
Crown's counsel the office has the power
to regulate this problem concerning the
administration of justice but the office
also has the power to try and protect
the Queen and the Crown's interest in
this matter attorney general is ex
officio to the queen is a legal advisor
of the governor-general and is the legal
advisor of the Privy Council the
Attorney General has charge has been
charged with all matters connected with
the administration of justice regulation
and control of claims against the crown
now again the powers duties and
functions of the minister the minister
is the official legal advisor of the
governor-general and the legal member of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and
shall be have the superintendence of all
matters connected within the
administration of justice in Canada not
within the jurisdiction of the
governments of the provinces the federal
attorney-general deals with the
administration of justice that is not
within the jurisdiction of the fed of
the provincial governments when
individual searches out their rights and
freedoms they will find that there are
certain fundamental rights and freedoms
that have been charged
into the provincial government the
provincial Attorney General and others
that remain the federal government
attorney general's responsibility common
law has existed for many many
generations and while now it must
develop in accordance with the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms and the
International bill on human rights the
administration of justice has always
been present even though it may not have
been very enforceable when we look to
that judgment are vs Haynes it states
prior to the charters advent the
individual really had no special means
of protecting against incursions upon
his or her basic fundamental rights by
executive or legislative arm of the
state law and the Constitution hinges
the existence of public order and it
mandated compliance with directive and
ordinances even if they infringed upon
individual fundamental rights and
freedoms now a primary purpose of the
Charter was to change this relationship
with the individual and the state and
its laws by endow individuals with an
effective means of challenging the acts
of the state in course on the ground the
violation of their constitutionally
protected rights and freedoms so when
you're looking for the administration of
justice it breaks down as follows the
federal Attorney General he has the
power to superintend concerning the
administration of justice to uphold your
fundamental rights and freedoms this
flows into the federal court of canada
and concerning the administration of
justice the provincial attorney general
this flows into the superior courts and
into all other courts now remember that
in the Supreme Court of Canada Gerald
Mitchell mentioned mentioned this the
charger itself contains no procedural
directions the absence of jurisdictional
provisions and directions in the Charter
confirms the view that the Charter was
not intended to turn the Canadian legal
system upside down what is required is
that it be fitted into the existing
scheme of the Canadian
legal procedures there is no need for
special procedures and rules to give to
give it full and adequate effect so what
we're talking about the administration
of justice if I seek this if I'm the one
that goes in and says listen the way
you're treating me through your
enactment and regulation is stripping me
of my fundamental rights and freedoms
then if I go against the federal court
and I go against the Attorney General
that's the federal wing if I go against
the provincial it's a provincial serial
provincial superior court and the
provincial Attorney General however I'm
brought into court example for a traffic
ticket or any other reason any court is
supposed to hear the administration of
justice that's what Mitchell is saying
there's no special procedure that needs
to bring it brought to bring it forth if
I'm there I should be able to seek the
administration of justice and that Court
should fit in my claim now in Vincent vs
ottawa look what it says here it talks
about the course of justice act and that
reads as follows this is a court
judgment the Superior Court of Justice
has all jurisdiction power and authority
historically exercised by the courts of
common law and equity so our superior
courts in our provinces have all the
power and authority that were
historically exercised by courts of
common law and equity the only
difference now is that this authority
and power it flows through the Charter
now again in article 26 of this day of
judgment he writes that it stands for
the proposition that the Superior Court
is a court of general jurisdiction and
has all the powers that are necessary to
do justice between the parties except
we're provided specifically to the
contrary the court's jurisdiction is
unlimited and unrestricted in civil
matters so here it says the Superior
Court has all the power necessary to do
justice unless what
except were provided specifically to the
contrary except if it was the federal
Attorney General of Canada that was
charged with the administration of
justice then the Superior Court wouldn't
have the power to deal with it because
another court has the power to deal with
it but if it's a provincial matter if
it's the Attorney General of the
province then to Superior Court has all
the power to deal with it it has all the
authority to deal with this common law
matter with this fundamental right and
freedom now remember the Supreme Court
of Canada again and an vs ryan says that
common law must develop in accordance
with the Charter and that a trespass in
common law equals an infringement or
denial of a fundamental right and
freedom now vincent vs ottawa it states
that the charter therefore does not
bestow upon the court jurisdiction had
previously lacked it does however grant
persons and notice the S their rights
not previously enshrined which may be
enforced by course of competent
jurisdiction having powers acquired
independent of the Charter now when you
look at the word person in general if
you just go to a dictionary and you look
at the word person it's going to break
down in two ways you're going to find
that it's going to say it can either
mean an artificial person or it can mean
a human being or man or a woman so when
it uses the word persons here that's why
they added the s to include both
capacities because we know the Charter
opens up both ways the Superior Court
has all jurisdiction power and authority
that's been exercised by common law
courts prior to the Charter the Superior
Court has inherent jurisdiction however
common law now is expressed through the
Charter now we're looking at another
judgment scarola versus and our 2002 the
term inherent jurisdiction is one of
that is commonly not always accurately
used when arguments are made with
respect to the jurisdiction based upon
which a court
asked to make a particular order the
inherent jurisdiction of a Superior
Court is derived not from any statute or
rule of law but from the very nature of
the court as a Superior Court so we are
seeing that the power to administer
justice in the Superior Court is not
flowing from or coming from any statute
or regulation this power to administrate
justice comes from the very heart of the
court when an individual is seeking the
administration of justice they are not
accessing a court that is a statutory
court but a court of inherent
jurisdiction now just the opposite is
corolla vs MN r it says the court as a
statutory creation does not have the
inherent jurisdiction so a Superior
Court when it's a statutory creation
when it's being regulated and controlled
under enactments and regulations it does
not possess it cannot exercise its
inherent jurisdiction however when you
are dealing with this court seeking the
administration of justice it then done
does have the inherent jurisdiction it
can regulate concerning fundamental
rights and freedoms it has all power and
authority to deal with common law
breeches with breaches of our
fundamental rights and freedoms to
superior court as a court of inherent
jurisdiction has the power to
administrate justice our common law
rights are charter rights disappear your
court as a statutory creation has no
inherent jurisdiction what we are seeing
is a two-faced court or a two-sided
Court the Superior Court on one hand has
all jurisdiction and power it has
inherent power to deal with the
administration of justice then it is
also a court of statutory creation and
does not have the inherent jurisdiction
now again
in re Mitchell estate and the City of
Toronto this is a judgment it says it
appears clear that the Supreme Court has
brought universal jurisdiction over all
matters of substantive law and again and
the rule for jurisdiction is that
nothing shall be intended to be out of
the jurisdiction of the Superior Court
but that which specifically appears to
be so if an individual was seeking the
administration of justice and went to
the Superior Court of their province it
has the inherent power to grant the
remedy to grant what you are seeking
however if the right you were seeking
was under federal control then the
Superior Court would have no power to
hear your claim now Viscount Haldane for
the Privy Council in dealing with the
question of the nature of the
jurisdiction of the Supreme of a
superior court said if the right exists
the presump the presumption is that
there is a court which can enforce it if
no other mode of enforcing is prescribed
that alone is sufficient to give
jurisdiction to the Queens Court of
Justice here it says Kings because this
was from 1667 but nevertheless now it's
the Queen's Bench Queens Court of
Justice in order to alter stiction it is
necessary in absence of a special law
excluding it all together to plead that
jurisdiction exists in some other court
this is the effect of authorities so the
only way the provincial Attorney General
and to Superior Court of the province
could refuse to hear your case
concerning the administration of justice
is that if it was under the control of
the federal Attorney General of Canada
if the right exists then the presumption
is that the Superior Court can enforce
the right as long as the protects
of the right is not assigned to another
court since the Superior Court has
inherent jurisdiction it has the ability
to enforce a right administration of
justice if the enforcement of this right
was not assigned to another court body
Superior Court mustn't forced the right
common law right flows through the
Charter if the right exists it's
sufficient to give jurisdiction to the
Superior Court again in Ag Attorney
General of Canada versus the Law Society
of British Columbia in his judgment he
states that these courts provincially
organized superior courts are surely
bound to execute our laws in force in
the Dominion okay all the laws whether
they are knocked it by the Parliament of
the Dominion or by local legislators now
he goes on and they are bound to take
cognizance of and execute all laws
whether enacted by the Dominion
Parliament or the local legislators so
we saw some of the attributes of the
Superior Court is that it possesses all
jurisdiction power that was exercised by
the common law courts and when you look
at these judgments this is talking about
going back to 1667 even farther the
Superior Court has the inherent power
but this power does not come from
statutes or regulations never we talked
about a statutory court where it gets
its power its guidance from enactments
well the Supreme Court of Canada its
power doesn't come its inherent power
does not come from enactments or
regulations it comes from the fact that
it exists and the supreme superior
courts already has universal
jurisdiction over all subject matters
and it goes on to say that if the right
exists that the Superior Court of your
province it can enforce it you see this
court here too
p record of your province is bound to
enforce all laws whether executed before
the Dominion of Canada or after the
Dominion that's what the Supreme Court
of Canada says again the executive
powers they create enactments and
regulations and if these enactments and
regulations and strip you of your
fundamental rights and freedoms if you
catch them taken away your fundamental
rights and freedoms do the judiciary the
Supreme Court the Superior Court is
supposed to be here to help you in order
to seek the administration of justice
and say executive powers those laws that
you are creating are going against the
Charter and more specifically they've
gone against that individuals
fundamental rights and freedoms now
therefore there are no no force or
effect against that individual we saw
our versus Haynes where it said prior to
the Charter we didn't have much power to
protect ourselves but now since the
advent of the Charter we have the
ability to challenge the executive
powers and say that enactment that
you're trying to force against me it's
stripping me of my fundamental rights
and freedoms therefore I'm going to seek
the administration of justice and I'll
find it in the Superior Court of my
province if it's a provincial matter and
if it's a federal matter I'll find it in
the federal court of canada the Queens
Court which we know as the Superior
Court is down to take recognition of all
house that are enforceable on this
territory the courts are bound to
enforce the right common law a trespass
equals a trespass of our charter rights
and freedoms common law develops with
the Charter Charter grants rights not
previously enshrined that were not
granted with guaranteed before they
existed but they weren't guaranteed now
in Vincent vs ottawa again it says the
Superior Court of Justice has all the
jurisdiction power and authority
historically exercised by course of
common law and equity common law rights
are enshrined or expressed and protected
in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
prior to the constitution act of 1980 to
our individual common law natural
fundamental rights and freedoms were not
enshrined and these rights whatever they
were were very difficult to uphold and
enforce now eldritch versus British
Columbia attorney-general 1997 there is
no question of course that the Charter
applies to provincial legislation to
ones who make the enactments and
regulations provincially there are two
ways however in which it can do so first
legislation may be found to be
unconstitutional on this face because it
violates charter right and is not saved
by section one in such cases the
legislation will be invalid and the
court compelled to declare it of no
force or effect for two pursuant to
section 52 section one the con of the
constitution act of nineteen eighty-two
secondly the Charter may be infringed
not by the legislation itself but by the
actions you see that by the actions of a
delegated decision-maker in applying it
in such cases the legislation remains
valid but a remedy for the
unconstitutional action may be sought
pursuant to section 24 subsection one of
the charter action taken under statutory
authority is valid only if it is within
the scope of that authority since
neither Parliament nor the legislature
can itself pass a law in breach of the
charter neither body can authorize
actions which would be in breach of the
charter thus the limitations on
statutory authority which are imposed by
the Charter will flow down the chain of
statutory authority and apply to
regulations bylaws borders decisions and
all other action whether legislative at
administrative or judicial which depends
forth validity on statutory authority