A man who refused to give his legal name to a police officer on grounds he was a “sovereign” or “natural” person has failed in an appeal of his conviction and sentence for obstruction at the B.C. Supreme Court.
In her decision handed down last week, Justice Sandra Sukstorf found the provincial court trial judge was correct in ruling that the appellant’s “sovereign-style” arguments did not, in fact, exempt him from his legal obligations.
“The appellant’s disagreement with the legitimacy or authority of ordinary legal processes does not exempt him from compliance with Canadian law,” she wrote.
The incident and trial
On Feb. 17, 2025, a witness reported a blue Ford F-150 “displaying a fictitious laminated paper licence plate” parked near the Coquitlam Grill on Barnet Highway, the court heard. The responding officer found the truck was uninsured, had a cracked windshield and was missing a rear window.
After the driver left the parking lot, the officer pulled him over and asked for his licence and proof of insurance.
The man refused to give the officer his last name, only identifying himself by his “sovereign names,” Peter William, according to the decision. His full legal name would later be revealed as Peter William Embleton through further investigation.
“After repeated warnings that failing to provide his full legal name would result in an obstruction arrest, Mr. Embleton continued to refuse and was arrested,” the summary of the incident reads.
Embleton remained in custody for more than a week, even after he was granted bail, because he refused to sign the release document as it “did not incorporate what he described as conditions relating to his asserted sovereign status,” the court heard.
When his trial began last August, Embleton again refused to provide his name and told the court he was appearing “by special divine appearance,” the decision continues. He was identified after the judge issued a bench warrant and sheriffs found an expired passport in his pocket.
Embleton was ultimately found guilty of obstruction of a peace officer and received a conditional discharge with one year of probation and 40 hours of community service.
Under his probation terms, Embleton is prohibited from giving information to anyone under 19 about “OPCA (Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument) ideologies”—which are, broadly speaking, strategies used by so-called sovereign citizens and other groups to argue the law does not apply to them.
The appeal
The supreme court judge said Embleton used “OPCA-style” arguments in his appeal, including that he withdrew from “public representation,” identifies as a “living man,” and is “what he describes as a ‘general executor’ of a purported trust estate.”
In essence, the court heard that Embleton asserted he existed in a personal capacity outside of the legal identity recognized by the state, and was therefore not subject to certain police requirements.
Sukstorf noted that arguments of that nature are not recognized in Canadian law.
Embleton submitted that the trial judge erroneously dismissed his materials as “nonsense” and failed to consider how his assertions affected his state of mind and intent during the offence.
“While the appellant disputes the characterization of his materials as OPCA-related, the concepts advanced in his submissions are consistent with concepts that Canadian courts have repeatedly considered to have no legal effect,” Sukstorf wrote.
She said the trial judge understood Embleton’s arguments, and the conclusion that they were invalid does not mean there was a misapprehension of evidence.
The court heard Embleton’s appeal turned on whether his beliefs negated the wilful intent required for an obstruction conviction.
“At its core, the appellant argues that he did not intend to obstruct the police, that the officers already possessed sufficient information concerning his identity, and that his conduct reflected his sincerely held beliefs concerning his asserted political and legal status rather than any wilful attempt to interfere with the police investigation,” the decision reads.
Sukstorf found the trial judge was correct in ruling Embleton was well aware that his refusal to provide his name would impede the officer’s duties—and even if he sincerely believed he was exempt from complying, “this was not a mistake of fact but rather a mistaken belief about legal obligations.”
Embleton also sought to appeal his sentence, which he characterized as excessive. However, Sukstorf said the conditional discharge, one year of probation and community service was restrained and lenient—and spared him a criminal record.
The appellant specifically took issue with the condition prohibiting him from sharing OPCA ideas with youth, arguing it improperly restricted his beliefs and expression.
“The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude, on the evidentiary record, that OPCA-style concepts are legally ineffective, disruptive to court and police processes, and capable of misusing public resources,” Sukstorf wrote.
She noted that Embleton mentors youth in laser chess programs, so she found the condition was reasonable given the risks.
The judge also did not accept the condition criminalizes his beliefs, nor does it prevent him from working with students.
Ultimately, she dismissed the appeal of the conviction and the sentence in full.
