Fearn v. Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114

• Judge: Tilleman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 13, 2014
• Citations: 2014 ABQB 114;(2014), 586 A.R. 23 (QB)

Fearn v. Can. Customs (2014), 586 A.R. 23 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. MR.014

Glenn Winningham Fearn (petitioner) v. Canada Customs (respondent)

(131453342X101001; 2014 ABQB 114)

Indexed As: Fearn v. Canada Customs

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Lethbridge

Tilleman, J.

February 27, 2014.

Summary:

Fearn was facing criminal weapons charges in the Provincial Court after he was detained and arrested by the Canada Border Services Agency for a 2013 incident. Fearn was an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigant (OPCA litigant). OPCA litigants generally rejected state and court authority over them and advanced universally rejected arguments to absolve themselves of any liability to the state or any other persons. Fearn applied to halt the Provincial Court criminal proceedings using OPCA arguments. The Crown argued that Fearn was using legally incorrect OPCA schemes, the proceedings were an improper collateral attack on the Provincial Court proceedings, and the application was otherwise legally or procedurally incorrect or defective in form. The Crown requested that future court filings be restricted and that costs be awarded against Fearn for this inappropriate application. At issue was "1. Can OPCA litigation in a criminal law context warrant costs, and if so, when? 2. How does the law of contempt of court respond to OPCA ideas, pseudolegal arguments, and the commercial context in which this material is propogated?".

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application on three grounds: "1. this application offends the rule against collateral attack, 2. the alleged range of defects to Crown and court authority are legally incorrect, and 3. Mr. Fearn's application is otherwise frivolous and vexatious." The court found Fearn to be a vexatious litigant and restricted his right to file further materials in the Court of Queen's Bench. The court declined to find Fearn in contempt of court. Although the court could have awarded costs against Fearn in what was essentially a criminal matter rather than a civil matter, it declined to do so.

Actions - Topic 2601.1

Duplicitous or vexatious actions - Leave to proceed with action or appeal - [See Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Actions - Topic 2602

Duplicitous or vexatious actions - Vexatious litigant - What constitutes - [See first Practice - Topic 5370 ].

Contempt - Topic 503

What constitutes contempt - General principles - Civil and criminal contempt distinguished - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Contempt of court exists in two forms: criminal contempt, and civil contempt. The distinction flows from the degree to which the contemptuous conduct has a potential general effect on the operation of the court. Criminal contempt is a public activity, while the public exposure and the resulting influence of misconduct which forms civil contempt is more limited. ... Criminal contempt is therefore also civil contempt, just with a larger potential area of effect." - See paragraphs 147, 149.

Contempt - Topic 1008

What constitutes contempt - Legal process - "Organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Fearn was an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigant (OPCA litigant) whose application to halt Provincial Court criminal proceedings was both frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the use of the contempt power to maintain order and control in the courts respecting OPCA litigants, especially where such arguments were increasingly being used in criminal proceedings, as well as civil proceedings - At issue was whether the character of Fearn's arguments and statements concerning the court were disrespectful to the court - Fearn's in-court conduct was generally appropriate - He respected the process, answered the court's questions and complied with instructions respecting the structure of the application hearing - Fearn's written submissions, however, stated, inter alia, that "judges are identified as part of a 'Vatican Jesuit masonic' conspiracy", "the judiciary are murderers, thieves, and liars", "judges are promoted and assigned to the bench as a reward for committing illegal acts", "members of the judiciary are 'the lowest form of life there is'", "the judiciary strips persons of firearms to leave them defenceless and thereby facilitate commission of illegal acts on those persons", "members of the judiciary intend to murder all Freemen and Sovereigns", and "Provincial Court judges have no knowledge of the law, they are 'truck drivers', 'ditch diggers', 'farmers', and 'store Clerks who masquerade as a judge'" - The court stated that "Contempt can flow from obnoxious, insulting, or derogatory comments, but only when that communication consequentially disrupts the court process itself ." - Absent such disruption, the writings and conduct at the hearing did not constitute contempt - See paragraphs 140 to 190.

Contempt - Topic 1008

What constitutes contempt - Legal process - "Organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants (OPCA litigant) generally rejected state and court authority over them and advanced universally rejected arguments to absolve themselves of any liability to the state or any other persons - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "OPCA schemes by their very nature may be a basis for a finding of civil contempt" on the basis that contempt was a functional tool to protect against attacks on court processes and authority - The court looked at four OPCA strategies: (1) foisted unilateral agreements; (2) fee schedules; (3) threats of extrajudicial prosecution or sanction; and (4) liens and other registered claims - The court stated that "this Court will not tolerate threats of illegal or vigilante action directed at the judiciary and court staff. Where those acts then also disrupt court operation then they may also represent criminal contempt" - See paragraphs 191 to 214.

Contempt - Topic 1008

What constitutes contempt - Legal process - "Organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants (OPCA litigant) generally rejected state and court authority over them and advanced universally rejected arguments to absolve themselves of any liability to the state or any other persons - Certain persons (gurus) promoted or sold these techniques or strategies to OPCA litigants as a commercial product - Gurus taught others methods to "frustrate, immobilize, or 'break' the courts" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the use of the court's criminal contempt power to address certain Guru activities, including a Guru representing an OPCA litigant in court, where the Guru was not a party to or appearing before the court (eg., publishing information that might affect the court proceedings), and communications to a specific target group - The court stated that "OPCA gurus promote and sell techniques that are either intended to break or frustrate court processes, or which have historically proven to impeded court function. I believe this is an instance of public activity which is potentially criminal contempt of court. The test identified in the appellate case law is that a criminal contempt of court sanction is appropriate when an activity constitutes a 'clear and present danger', 'real and imminent harm or threat to justice'. OPCA gurus sell and promote techniques that damage the court. The judiciary regularly encounters litigants who attempt to apply these techniques. Only a small fraction of those events are documented in reported case law. This is not merely a theoretical issue, but one that is a regular and unwelcome event." - See paragraphs 215 to 254.

Courts - Topic 554.1

Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Fearn was facing criminal weapons charges in the Provincial Court after he was detained and arrested by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) for a 2013 incident - Fearn was an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigant (OPCA litigant) - OPCA litigants generally rejected state and court authority over them and advanced universally rejected arguments to absolve themselves of any liability to the state or any other persons - Fearn applied to halt the Provincial Court criminal proceedings using OPCA arguments - He sought various relief, including prohibition respecting the criminal proceedings, vacating the CBSA decision, a non-suit motion, a stay of the criminal proceedings, and compensation for false imprisonment - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application on three grounds: "1. this application offends the rule against collateral attack, 2. the alleged range of defects to Crown and court authority are legally incorrect, and 3. Mr. Fearn's application is otherwise frivolous and vexatious." - The court found Fearn to be a vexatious litigant and restricted his right to file further materials in the Court of Queen's Bench without an order of the court - The court declined to find Fearn in contempt of court or award costs against him - See paragraphs 12 to 111.

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Controlling abuse of its process (incl. abuse of process by relitigation) - [See Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 5370

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Frivolous or vexatious actions - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The concepts of frivolous and vexatious litigation overlap. A pleading is frivolous if its substance indicates bad faith or is factually hopeless ... A frivolous plea is one so palpably bad that the Court needs no real argument to be convinced of that fact ... Claims that arise from '... outright misreadings of various federal statutes and constitutional provisions ... are likewise frivolous' ... Vexatious is synonymous with impropriety and abuse of process ... A proceeding is vexatious if it satisfies any of the following tests: (a) the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding; (b) where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious; (c) vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights; (d) it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings; (e) in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action; (f) the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are vexatious; (g) the respondent's conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceeding." - Fearn, an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigant (OPCA litigant), applied to halt Provincial Court criminal proceedings against him using OPCA arguments that had been universally rejected - The court identified three Canadian and 17 American OPCA based actions by Fearn that were all dismissed as fatally flawed or abandoned - The court held that Fearn was a vexatious litigant - See paragraphs 94 to 111.

Practice - Topic 5370

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Frivolous or vexatious actions - [See Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 5408.1

Judgments and orders - General - Collateral attack - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed an application to halt, prohibit or stay a pending criminal proceeding in the Provincial Court by an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigant on the ground that it constituted a collateral attack - The court stated that "a Court cannot review or vary the decision of another court except in the proper procedural context, such as an appeal. Any attempt to litigate outside of that context is a 'collateral attack' ... 'The rule against collateral attack ... prevents a party from using an institutional detour to attack the validity of an order by seeking a different result from a different forum, rather than through the designated appellate or judicial review route' ... Mr. Fearn's correct course of action is to complete the [criminal proceeding] in provincial court, and if he is dissatisfied with the result, he may then appeal." - See paragraphs 28 to 31.

Practice - Topic 7346

Costs - Costs in criminal proceedings - Payable by "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigant - Fearn was facing criminal weapons charges in the Provincial Court after he was detained and arrested by the Canada Border Services Agency for a 2013 incident - Fearn was an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigant (OPCA litigant) - OPCA litigants generally rejected state and court authority over them and advanced universally rejected arguments to absolve themselves of any liability to the state or any other persons - Fearn applied to halt the Provincial Court criminal proceedings using OPCA arguments - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application on the grounds of collateral attack, a legally incorrect argument respecting the authority of the courts and the Crown, and as an otherwise frivolous and vexatious application - Now at issue was whether the court could and/or would award costs against Fearn in what was, in spite of the form of the pleadings, effectively a criminal proceeding rather than a civil one - The court stated that "I therefore conclude that, though exceptional, costs may be awarded against a defendant in a criminal matter who employs OPCA strategies to cause illegitimate and unnecessary steps in a criminal proceeding. I suggest an award of that kind may be made where four criteria are met: 1. the accused is the one who initiates a hearing, application, or process; 2. the accused's position relies on a clearly illegal or incorrect basis, such as a known, identified, and rejected OPCA strategy; 3. the accused is entirely unsuccessful; and 4. the hearing, application, or process is not a direct component of the criminal trial or sentencing process, but instead is ancillary to the criminal proceeding itself, for example: a) a meaningless application to a different court to challenge the criminal proceeding or court jurisdiction; b) an application to deny trial court jurisdiction; c) an attempt to enter irrelevant evidence or witnesses; d) an application for representation of the accused by an inappropriate representative, such as an OPCA guru; and e) an application for release of the accused from pre-trial detention outside the judicial interim release process, such as a frivolous habeas corpus application. ... where OPCA concepts emerge in a trial itself then that misconduct is potentially more relevant as a factor in sentencing ... My guidelines on award of costs are therefore intended to contemplate OPCA-based disruptions in a criminal proceeding that are discrete from the general criminal process. ... I did not order the cost award proposed by the Crown because the proposed remedy might be new or at least unannounced. I believe that was only fair to Mr. Fearn. He, as the accused, should be fully aware of what would be very fairly described as an unexpected potential consequence to his litigation strategy." - See paragraphs 113 to 139.

Cases Noticed:

Meads v. Meads (2012), 543 A.R. 215; 2012 ABQB 571, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Sargent, [2005] 1 C.T.C. 448; 2004 ONCJ 356, refd to. [para. 10].

Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 422; 421 N.R. 338; 311 B.C.A.C. 1; 529 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 29].

Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Figliolo - see Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al.

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 29].

Quebec (Procureur général) v. Laroche et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 708; 295 N.R. 291; 219 D.L.R.(4th) 723; 2002 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Sarson (J.A.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223; 197 N.R. 125; 91 O.A.C. 124; 135 D.L.R.(4th) 402, refd to. [para. 29].

Clarke v. Phinney (1896), 25 S.C.R. 633, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194; 4 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Hill (K.L.), [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 3935; 107 O.R.(3d) 40; 2011 ONSC 3935, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Prigotzke (T.K.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 696; 66 W.C.B.(2d) 682; 2005 ABQB 653, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Anson (1983), 146 D.L.R.(3d) 661; 42 B.C.L.R. 282 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Song (D.) (2001), 296 A.R. 132; 2001 ABQB 689, refd to. [para. 32].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Porisky (R.A.) et al., [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 67; [2012] 4 C.T.C. 160; 2012 BCSC 67, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Leibel (R.J.) (2000), 202 Sask.R. 206; 2000 SKQB 565, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Lemieux (G.) et al., [2007] Sask.R. Uned. 124; [2008] 2 C.T.C. 291; 2007 SKPC 135, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Greenlaw, 1968 CanLII 144 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Lindsay (D.K.) (2011), 302 B.C.A.C. 76; 511 W.A.C. 76; 2011 BCCA 99, leave to appeal refused (2011), 428 N.R. 389; 313 B.C.A.C. 320; 533 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Klassen et al. (2004), 364 A.R. 230; 2004 ABQB 463, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Warman (E.-G.), [2001] B.C.A.C. Uned. 101; 2001 BCCA 510, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Sands (R.) (2013), 416 Sask.R. 279; 2013 SKQB 115, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Valliere, 2013 ONCJ 158, refd to. [para. 52].

Hajdu v. Family Responsibility Office (Ont.), [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 1835; 2012 ONSC 1835, refd to. [para. 53].

Ramjohn et al. v. Rudd et al., [2007] A.R. Uned. 102; 156 A.C.W.S.(3d) 38; 2007 ABQB 84, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. JBC Securities Ltd. et al. (2003), 261 N.B.R.(2d) 199; 685 A.P.R. 199; 2003 NBCA 53, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Petrie (S.D.), [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2109; 2012 BCSC 2109, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Lindsay (D.K.) (2008), 250 B.C.A.C. 270; 416 W.A.C. 270; 2008 BCCA 30, refd to. [para. 57].

Harper v. Atchison et al. (2011), 369 Sask.R. 134; 2011 SKQB 38, refd to. [para. 57].

Minicozzi v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2013 QCCA 1722, refd to. [para. 58].

Banque Royale du Canada v. Minicozzi, 2013 QCCQ 6566, refd to. [para. 58].

Goyette v. Quebec (Agence du revenu), 2013 QCCQ 16299, refd to. [para. 58].

A.N.B. v. Alberta (Minister of Human Services) et al. (2013), 557 A.R. 364; 2013 ABQB 97, refd to. [para. 59].

A.N.B. v. Hancock - see A.N.B. v. Alberta (Minister of Human Services) et al.

Papadopoulos v. Borg et al., [2009] A.R. Uned. 74; 2009 ABCA 201, refd to. [para. 61].

Henry v. El et al., [2010] A.R. Uned. 451; 2010 ABCA 312, leave to appeal refused (2011), 426 N.R. 392; 524 A.R. 399; 545 W.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

Herbison v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2020; 2013 BCSC 2020, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Petrie (S.D.), [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2110; 2012 BCSC 2110, refd to. [para. 61].

Hedley v. Spivey, [2011] WASC 325, refd to. [para. 68].

Hedley v. Spivey, [2012] WASCA 116, refd to. [para. 68].

O'Connell v. Western Australia (State), [2012] WASCA 96, refd to. [para. 68].

Williamson v. Hodgson, [2010] WASC 95, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Kruger and Manuel, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 104; 15 N.R. 495; 75 D.L.R.(3d) 434, refd to. [para. 73].

Sydel v. Canada et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 638; 2010 DTC 5120; 2010 BCSC 638, affd. [2011] B.C.A.C. Uned. 82; 2011 BCCA 233, leave to appeal denied (2011), 431 N.R. 398; 319 B.C.A.C. 320; 542 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Sydel (E.N.M.), [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1473; [2011] 1 C.T.C. 200; 2010 BCSC 1473, affd. [2011] B.C.A.C. Uned. 34; 2011 BCCA 103, leave to appeal refused (2011), 428 N.R. 389; 313 B.C.A.C. 320; 533 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Gunn (P.B.) (2003), 335 A.R. 137; 2003 ABQB 314, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Lindsay (D.-K.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 188; 68 W.C.B.(2d) 718; 2006 BCSC 188, affd. [2007] B.C.A.C. Uned. 54; [2007] 4 C.T.C. 153; 2007 BCCA 214, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Crischuk (K.-C.) et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 716; 2010 BCSC 716, affd. [2010] B.C.A.C. Uned. 70; 2010 DTC 5141; 2010 BCCA 391, refd to. [para. 85].

Pleau v. Nova Scotia (Prothonotary) (1998), 186 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 581 A.P.R. 1; 43 C.P.C.(4th) 201 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

Polewsky v. Home Hardware Stores Ltd. et al. (2003), 174 O.A.C. 358; 66 O.R.(3d) 600; 229 D.L.R.(4th) 308 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 90].

Donaldson v. Farrell et al., [2011] A.R. Uned. 51; 2011 ABQB 11, refd to. [para. 95].

Serdahely Estate, Re (2008), 453 A.R. 337; 2008 ABQB 472, refd to. [para. 95].

Haljan v. Serdahely Estate - see Serdahely Estate, Re.

Maxwell et al. v. Snow (John W.) and the Department of Treasury (2005), 409 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. Ct.), refd to. [para. 96].

United States of America v. Greenstreet (1996), 912 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex.), refd to. [para. 96].

V.W.W. v. Leung et al. (2011), 530 A.R. 82; 2011 ABQB 688 (Master), refd to. [para. 97].

McMeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al. (2012), 537 A.R. 136; 2012 ABQB 144, refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 97].

Reece et al. v. Edmonton (City) (2011), 513 A.R. 199; 530 W.A.C. 199; 335 D.L.R.(4th) 600; 2011 ABCA 238, refd to. [para. 98].

Dykun v. Odishaw et al. (2000), 267 A.R. 318; 2000 ABQB 548, affd. (2001), 286 A.R. 392; 253 W.A.C. 392; 2001 ABCA 204, leave to appeal denied (2002), 289 N.R. 194; 299 A.R. 317; 266 W.A.C. 317 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 100].

McMeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al. (2012), 543 A.R. 132; 2012 ABQB 456, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Taylor (T.E.) (2008), 261 N.S.R.(2d) 247; 835 A.P.R. 247; 2008 NSCA 5, refd to. [para. 118].

R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc. et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 575; 279 N.R. 345; 154 O.A.C. 345; 2001 SCC 81, refd to. [para. 119].

R. v. Ouellette, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 568; 32 N.R. 361; 111 D.L.R.(3d) 216, refd to. [para. 120].

R. v. Lebrasseur (D.J.) (1997), 163 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 487 A.P.R. 301; 36 W.C.B.(2d) 21 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Duarte (E.), [2003] O.T.C. 392; 57 W.C.B.(2d) 428 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Trang (D.) et al. (2002), 323 A.R. 297; 11 Alta. L.R.(4th) 52; 2002 ABQB 744, refd to. [para. 121].

Quebec (Attorney General) et al. v. Cronier (1981), 63 C.C.C.(2d) 437 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. J.G.C. (2006), 208 O.A.C. 24; 78 O.R.(3d) 778 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

E.J.A.L. v. Royal Ottawa Health Care Group et al. (2009), 244 O.A.C. 359; 2009 ONCA 16, refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. Leyshon-Hughes; Leyshon-Hughes v. Ontario Review Board - see E.J.A.L. v. Royal Ottawa Health Care Group et al.

R. v. Bhatti (S.S.) (2006), 220 B.C.A.C. 306; 362 W.A.C. 306; 2006 BCCA 16, refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. Liberatore (M.V.) (2010), 292 N.S.R.(2d) 69; 925 A.P.R. 69; 2010 NSCA 26, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Smith (K.D.) (1999), 133 Man.R.(2d) 89; 41 W.C.B.(2d) 24 (Q.B.), affd. (2000), 142 Man.R.(2d) 316; 212 W.A.C. 316 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 125].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Knight (1993), 84 Man.R.(2d) 231; 13 C.P.C.(3d) 315 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Maleki (2007), 74 W.C.B.(2d) 816; 2007 ONCJ 430, refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Onevathana (S.) et al. (2002), 306 A.R. 345; 2002 ABQB 27, refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Alexander, 2012 BCPC 108, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Boyer, 2007 BCPC 313, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Boyer, 2009 BCPC 278, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Bydeley, 2012 ONCJ 837, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Cassista, 2013 ONCJ 305, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Dornn (P.M.) (2012), 284 Man.R.(2d) 36; 555 W.A.C. 36; 2012 MBCA 85, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Furqan (A.), [2013] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 99; 2013 NSCA 55, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Jastrebske (A.) (2013), 419 Sask.R. 15; 2013 SKQB 150, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Seagull (J.L.), [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1811; 2013 BCSC 1811, refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Westover, 2013 ONCJ 472, refd to. [para. 128].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93; 53 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 143].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176; 51 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 143].

R. v. Hinse (R.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597; 189 N.R. 321; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 54, refd to. [para. 143].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725; 191 N.R. 260; 68 B.C.A.C. 161; 112 W.A.C. 161; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 385, affing. (1994), 43 B.C.A.C. 1; 69 W.A.C. 1; 113 D.L.R.(4th) 368 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 143].

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901; 135 N.R. 321; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 144].

Gillespie v. Manitoba (Attorney General) (2000), 145 Man.R.(2d) 229; 218 W.A.C. 229; 185 D.L.R.(4th) 214; 2000 MBCA 1, refd to. [para. 145].

Regina (City) v. Cunningham (1994), 121 Sask.R. 272; 30 C.P.C.(3d) 160 (Q.B.), affd. (1994), 123 Sask.R. 233; 74 W.A.C. 233; 30 C.P.C.(3d) 183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 145].

Koerner v. Capital Health Authority et al. (2011), 515 A.R. 392; 532 W.A.C. 392; 2011 ABCA 289, leave to appeal denied (2012), 435 N.R. 393; 536 A.R. 405; 559 W.A.C. 405 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 146].

Point on the Bow Development Ltd. v. Kelly (William) & Sons Plumbing Contractors Ltd. et al. (2006), 405 A.R. 1; 2006 ABQB 775, affd. (2007), 417 A.R. 191; 410 W.A.C. 191; 2007 ABCA 204, refd to. [para. 151].

Kent v. Martin et al. (2012), 541 A.R. 392; 2012 ABQB 467, refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Vermette, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 577; 74 N.R. 221; 77 A.R. 372; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 419, refd to. [para. 152].

Gerson, Re, [1946] S.C.R. 538; 87 C.C.C. 143, refd to. [para. 152].

Bhatnager v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 217; 111 N.R. 185; 71 D.L.R.(4th) 84, refd to. [para. 155].

R. v. Linehan (G.) (2000), 276 A.R. 383; 2000 ABQB 815, refd to. [para. 160].

R. v. Loosdrecht, [2009] 4 C.T.C. 49; 2008 BCPC 400, refd to. [para. 160].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Re (2008), 171 C.R.R.(2d) 86; 2008 NWTTC 5, refd to. [para. 163].

Koerner v. Capital Health Authority et al. (2010), 498 A.R. 99; 2010 ABQB 557, refd to. [para. 163].

R. v. Edmonton Sun Publishing (1981), 16 Alta. L.R.(2d) 246; 62 C.C.C.(2d) 318 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 165].

Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. King Emperor, [1945] A.C. 264, refd to. [para. 166].

R. v. Paul, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 169; 33 N.R. 91; 111 D.L.R.(3d) 626, refd to. [para. 166].

R. v. Kopyto (1987), 24 O.A.C. 81; 62 O.R.(2d) 449; 47 D.L.R.(4th) 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 167].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Cram, [1994] B.C.T.C. Uned. A18; 95 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 24 W.C.B.(2d) 383 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 172].

R. v. Prefontaine (2002), 12 Alta. L.R.(4th) 50; 2002 ABQB 980, refd to. [para. 175].

R. v. Gillespie (G.D.) (2000), 149 Man.R.(2d) 196; 2000 MBQB 149, affd. (2000), 156 Man.R.(2d) 162; 246 W.A.C. 162; 2000 MBCA 160, refd to. [para. 180].

R. v. High Sierra Broadcasting Ltd., [1990] B.C.J. No. 2982 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 182].

R. v. Cohn (1984), 4 O.A.C. 293; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 150; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 680 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 191].

Attorney General v. Leveller Magazine Ltd., [1979] A.C. 440; [1979] 1 All E.R. 745 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 191].

R. v. Froese (1980), 23 B.C.L.R. 181; 54 C.C.C.(2d) 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 192].

Bank of Montreal v. McCance, [2012] A.R. Uned. 635; 2012 ABQB 537, refd to. [para. 195].

R. v. Rudolf (J.K.) et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 565; 2010 BCSC 565, refd to. [para. 197].

Services de financement TD inc. v. Michaud, 2011 QCCQ 14868, refd to. [para. 197].

R. v. S.F.L., [2008] Sask.R. Uned. 35; 77 W.C.B.(2d) 323; 2008 SKQB 123, refd to. [para. 198].

R. v. S.F.L., [2008] Sask.R. Uned. 39; 2008 SKCA 93, refd to. [para. 198].

Jabez Financial Services Inc. v. Sponagle (2008), 264 N.S.R.(2d) 224; 847 A.P.R. 224; 2008 NSSC 112, refd to. [para. 201].

Perreal v. Knibb (2014), 581 A.R. 275; 2014 ABQB 15, refd to. [para. 205].

Squamish Indian Band et al. v. Capilano Mobile Park et al., [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 470; 2011 BCSC 470, affd. (2012), 318 B.C.A.C. 239; 541 W.A.C. 239; 2012 BCCA 126, refd to. [para. 211].

R. v. Edmonton Sun et al. (2003), 320 A.R. 217; 288 W.A.C. 217; 221 D.L.R.(4th) 438; 2003 ABCA 3, refd to. [para. 224].

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Interwest Publications Ltd. (1990), 108 A.R. 173; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 83 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 224].

R. v. Bowes Publishers Ltd. et al. (1995), 171 A.R. 55; 30 Alta. L.R.(3d) 236 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 224].

R. v. Glasner (E.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 81; 19 O.R.(3d) 739; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 235].

Doncaster v. Chignecto-Central Regional School Board et al. (2013), 330 N.S.R.(2d) 82; 1046 A.P.R. 82; 2013 NSCA 59, refd to. [para. 236].

Macdonald et al. v. First National Financial GP Corp. (2013), 330 N.S.R.(2d) 115; 1046 A.P.R. 115; 2013 NSCA 60, refd to. [para. 236].

Mazhero v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp./Radio-Canada, 2014 QCCA 107, refd to. [para. 236].

Yankson v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2332; 2013 BCSC 2332, refd to. [para. 240].

First National Financial GP Corp. v. MacDonald et al. (2013), 332 N.S.R.(2d) 170; 1052 A.P.R. 170; 2013 NSSC 219, refd to. [para. 241].

First National Financial GP Corp. v. Maritime Residential Housing Development Ltd. - see First National Financial GP Corp. v. MacDonald et al.

Scotia Mortgage Corp. v. Gutierrez, [2012] A.R. Uned. 756; 2012 ABQB 683, refd to. [para. 241].

1158997 Alberta Inc. et al. v. Maple Trust Co. et al. (2013), 568 A.R. 286; 2013 ABQB 483, refd to. [para. 241].

A.R. v. Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement (Alta.) (2013), 562 A.R. 316; 2013 ABQB 280, refd to. [para. 241].

J.A. et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Social Development) et al., [2013] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 41; 2013 NBQB 137 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 241].

Hryniak v. Mauldin (2014), 453 N.R. 51; 314 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Blerot (G.W.J.), [2014] Sask.R. Uned. 6; 2014 SKQB 2, refd to. [para. 244].

R. v. Hamilton (R.L.), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 432; 336 N.R. 302; 371 A.R. 201; 354 W.A.C. 301; 2005 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 247].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Chamberlain, Robert, and Haider-Markel, Donald P., "Lien on Me": State Policy Innovation in Response to Paper Terrorism (2005), 58 Polit. Research Quart. 449, generally [para. 232].

Haynie, Erick J., Populism, Free Speech, and the Rule of Law: The "Fully Informed" Jury Movement and Its Implications (1997), 88 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 343, generally [para. 232].

Huhn, Wilson, Political Alienation in America and The Legal Premises of the Patriot Movement (1999), 34 Gonz. L. Rev. 417, generally [para. 232].

Jacob, The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court (1970), 23 Current Legal Problems 23, generally [para. 143].

Kent, Stephen, and Willey, Robin, Sects, Cults, and the Attack on Jurisprudence (2013), 14 Rutgers' J. of Law and Religion 306, pp. 319 to 329 [para. 205].

Koniak, Susan P., When Law Risks Madness (1996), 8 Cardozo Stud. L. & Literature 65, generally [para. 232].

Miller, Christopher J., Contempt of Court (1989), pp. 162 to 163 [para. 193].

Miller, Jeffrey, The Law of Contempt in Canada (1997), p. 113 [para. 168].

Pytyck, Jennifer, and Chaimowitz, Gary A., The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial (2013), 12:2 International J. of Forensic Mental Health 149, generally [para. 233].

Sullivan, Francis X., The "Usurping Octopus of Jurisdictional/Authority": The Legal Theories of the Sovereign Citizen Movement (1999), Wis. L. Rev. 785, generally [para. 232].

Theret, Michelle, Sovereign Citizens: A Homegrown Terrorist Threat and its Negative Impact on South Carolina (2012), 63 South Carolina L. Rev. 853, generally [para. 232].

Vaché, James M., and DeForrest, Mark Edward, Truth or Consequences: The Jurisprudential Errors of the Militant Far Right (1997), Gonz. L. Rev. 593, pp. 600 to 607 [para. 51].

Watson, Jack, Badmouthing the Bench: Is There a Clear and Present Danger? To What? (1992), 56 Sask. L. Rev. 113, generally [para. 171].

Counsel:

Mr. Fearn, for himself;

B. Benkendorf and A. Bernard, for the Crown.

This application was heard on January 13, 2014, before Tilleman, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Lethbridge, who delivered the following judgment on February 27, 2014.