Meads v. Meads,

• Judge: Rooke
• Neutral Citation: 2012 ABQB 571
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Date: 08 June 2012
• Citation: 2012 ABQB 571,(2012), 543 A.R. 215 (QB),[2013] 3 WWR 419,543 AR 215,74 Alta LR (5th) 1,[2012] AJ No 980 (QL),[2012] A.J. No 980 (QL),543 A.R. 215,(2012), 543 AR 215 (QB)

Meads v. Meads (2012), 543 A.R. 215 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. OC.010

Crystal Lynne Meads (appellant) v. Dennis Larry Meads (respondent)

(4803 155609; 2012 ABQB 571)

Indexed As: Meads v. Meads

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Rooke, A.C.J.Q.B.

September 18, 2012.

Summary:

A wife brought a divorce and matrimonial property action against the husband after 31 years' marriage. The wife, having difficulty moving the proceeding forward due to the husband's lack of cooperation, applied to appoint a case management judge under the Rules of Court. The husband filed documents and made arguments espousing the views of various groups collectively referred to as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (OPCA litigants). A common theme of OPCA litigants was the general rejection of state and court authority over them, unless that authority was to their benefit. The husband argued that the court had no authority to grant his wife a divorce or to order him to pay spousal and/or child support. He walked out of the proceedings.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dealt with the husband's OPCA litigant conduct and documents, and allowed the wife's application to appoint a case management judge. The court rejected all of the OPCA litigant arguments and tactics, the sole purpose of which was to evade his lawful obligations and the authority of the court and the state. The court exhaustively reviewed the history of OPCA litigants, the universal rejection of their theories, and offered a general guideline of appropriate remedies, criminally and civilly, for judges to deal with such issues in the future.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 666

Duty to court - General principles - Duty re inappropriate conduct of client - [See 11th Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Contracts - Topic 1301

Formation of contract - Acceptance - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the common law in most cases requires that the recipient of an offer ... must take a positive step to accept that offer, acknowledge its terms and benefits, and communicate that fact . ... An offeror may not arbitrarily impose contractual liability upon an offeree merely by proclaiming that silence shall be deemed consent. ... As a general rule, it is not enough for one to whom an offer is made to assent inwardly; the offeree must communicate acceptance to the offeror ... There are certain limited instances where a court may infer acceptance of a contract, despite failure to explicitly communicate acceptance, for example where the offeree uses an offered service" - See paragraphs 464, 467, 469.

Contracts - Topic 1503

Formation of contract - Consensus or agreement - What constitutes a consensus necessary for a binding contract - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "both parties to a contract must agree to its terms and to be bound in legal relations. The corollary of that is that one person cannot unilaterally impose a contract on another. ... A contract requires a 'meeting of the minds', or in Latin, 'consensus ad idem'. This is another way of saying that the parties to a contract must agree to the terms of that contract." - See paragraphs 460 to 461.

Copyright - Topic 1009

Works subject to copyright - Character or names - Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Various groups labelled Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (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 - Further, it was common for an OPCA litigant to claim "copyright" in his name, entitling him to monies each time someone used his name - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "there is not authority present, nor, I believe, capable of establishing that a personal name can form a creative work that would be subject to copyright. In any case, even if that were so, then copyright in a name would presumably vest with its authors, [the copyright claimants] parents" - See paragraph 502.

Courts - Topic 554.1

Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - In a divorce and matrimonial property proceeding, the self-represented husband filed documents and made arguments espousing the views of various groups collectively referred to as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (OPCA litigants) - The husband found the court's decisions "unacceptable", walked out during a case management application and refused to follow the court's directions - Generally, OPCA litigants rejected state and court authority over them, unless that authority was to their benefit - Various groups were called "detaxers", "freemen-on-the-land" or some variant thereof, "sovereign men or sovereign citizens", "the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International" and "Moorish Law" adherents - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "OPCA strategies as brought before this court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful ... Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct. ... these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. ... The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products [gurus], are parasites that must be stopped" - The court undertook a "review of the law concerning OPCA, the OPCA community and its gurus, and how the court, lawyers and litigants should respond to these vexatious practices and the persons who advance and advocate these techniques and ideas".

Courts - Topic 554.1

Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Various groups labelled Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (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 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, faced with an OPCA litigant's filing of numerous vexatious documents in a family law proceeding, offered the following special procedures to respond to such documents "1. that court clerks reject the materials that do not conform with required standards; 2. that the court clerks accept and mark these materials as 'received' rather than 'filed'; and 3. that materials that disclose OPCA characteristics may be reviewed by a judge without further submission or representation by the litigants, and that the judge may: a) declare that the litigation, application, or defence is frivolous, irrelevant or improper ... or an abuse of process ...; b) order that the documents are irrelevant to the substance of the litigation, but are only retained on file as evidence that is potentially relevant to costs against the OPCA litigant, vexatious status of the litigation and litigant, and/or whether the litigant has engaged in criminal or contemptuous misconduct; c) reject the document and order that if the litigant wishes to continue its action, application, or defence, the litigant then file replacement documentation that conforms to court formalities and does not involve irrelevant OPCA arguments; d) order that the litigant appear before a court in a 'show cause' hearing to prove the litigant has a action or defence that is recognized in law; that hearing need not involve participation of the other party or parties; and e) assign fines, as authorized by rule 10.49(1)" - See paragraph 256.

Courts - Topic 554.1

Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Various groups labelled Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (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 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "OPCA litigants are known to engage in disruptive and inappropriate in-court conduct ... and sometimes appear with supporters who do the same ... This misconduct extends to disrespect, threats, and in some cases violence directed to court personnel, judges, and other parties. ... It is therefor appropriate that a court may adopt specific in-court and security procedures in response to persons who are suspected OPCA litigants. Additional in-court security is generally warranted." - See paragraphs 257, 261.

Courts - Topic 554.1

Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Various groups labelled Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (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 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench suggested the following responses to OPCA strategies: "A court may strike claims or dismiss an action where the judge concludes that a commencement document or pleading is frivolous, irrelevant or improper ... or an abuse of process ... a court's inherent jurisdiction may be applied to control its own process and prevent abuse ... when faced with truly baffling OPCA materials, a court may ... strike a proceeding based on incomprehensible arguments and allegations. ... Where specifically sought by the party opposing an OPCA litigant, punitive damages may be appropriate where a litigant advances an OPCA scheme, concept or strategy. An award of this kind would relate to pre-trial misconduct ... such as a demand for payment or a lien filed on the basis of a foisted unilateral agreement" - See paragraphs 587, 588, 590, 591.

Courts - Topic 554.1

Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Various groups labelled Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (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 - One such tactic or strategy was the "'money for nothing' scheme, the A4V technique", that OPCA litigants used to try to defeat valid fiscal obligations - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "any litigation or defence based on the pseudolegal A4V concept is inherently frivolous and vexatious. That favours full indemnification of a person who faces an A4V strategy, and punitive and aggravated damages where the A4V strategy is advanced outside a litigation context. I see no reason why other OPCA 'money for nothing' schemes will not be evaluated in an analogous manner, but leave that issue to future proceedings" - See paragraphs 583 to 585.

Courts - Topic 554.1

Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Various groups labelled Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (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 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "presumptively, an unsuccessful litigant is expected to pay the opposing parties an amount to offset the legal cost of a proceeding, hearing, or application ... One potential exception to that is where an issue is novel, and therefore the court should take the exceptional step of not ordering costs ... Though many OPCA concepts and arguments certainly are unusual, I am not aware any case where costs obligations against an OPCA litigant were waived on the basis they are 'novel'. ... OPCA litigation has historically led to elevated cost awards. ... Frequently that may be either on a full indemnity, solicitor and own client basis, or an elevated solicitor and client costs award. ... Some of the identified criteria for an award of those kinds include: solicitor and clients costs are awarded where the conduct of a party has been 'reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous' ...; solicitor and client costs might suffice to satisfy the objectives of deterrence and punishment that would otherwise be served by a punitive damage award ...; misconduct during the litigation can surely be found if there is no reasonable basis on which to commence, or continue, litigation ...; a proceeding that was based on groundless allegations and was a type of conduct that should be discouraged ...; justice can only be done by a complete indemnification for costs ...; there is evidence that the plaintiff did something to hinder, delay or confuse the litigation, where there was no serious issue of fact or law which required these lengthy, expensive proceedings, where the positively misconducting party was 'contemptuous' of the aggrieved party in forcing that aggrieved party to exhaust legal proceedings to obtain that which was obviously his ...; an attempt to deceive the court and defeat justice, an attempt to delay, deceive and defeat justice ...; where the defendants were guilty of positive misconduct, where others should be deterred from like conduct and the defendants should be penalized beyond the ordinary order of costs ...; an attempt to delay or hinder proceedings, an attempt to deceive or defeat justice, fraud or untrue or scandalous charges ...; the positive misconduct of the party which gives rise to the action is so blatant and is calculated to deliberately harm the other party, then despite the technically proper conduct of the legal proceedings, the very fact that the action must be brought by the injured party to gain what was rightfully his in the face of an unreasonable denial" - See paragraphs 596 to 597.

Courts - Topic 554.1

Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Various groups labelled Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (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 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "I am not aware of any OPCA litigation where the target of the OPCA strategy has applied for payment into court of security for costs (Rule 4.22). That said, it seems to me that litigation, a defence, or an application, that flows from a known OPCA strategy, might favour an order of that kind. OPCA strategies that are proven as invalid means the merits of an OPCA litigation are poor: Rule 22(c). Second, OPCA litigants stereotypically deny any obligation to pay state and court obligations, which would make enforcement of a costs award difficult: rule 4.22(a). Last, there is the fact these OPCA litigants usually say they stand outside the court's authority. That alone is a strong factor that may favour a security for costs order (rule 4.22(e)), as that certainly does not favour a reasonable confidence that in this instance the OPCA litigant will acknowledge and discharge his or her cost liability." - See paragraphs 601, 602.

Courts - Topic 554.1

Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Various groups labelled Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (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 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "rule 10.49(1) authorizes a judge to order ' a party , lawyer or other person ' pay the court clerk a penalty where a person: '(a) fails to comply with these rules or a practice note or direction of the court without adequate excuse, and (b) the contravention or failure to comply, in the court's opinion, has interfered with or may interfere with the proper or efficient administration of justice' ... This Rule provides a potentially very helpful mechanism to address OPCA litigant and guru misconduct. ... this Court has a very flexible tool that may be applied to penalize persons who advance OPCA methods. Notably, this Rule allows a judge to target 'other persons', such as the third-parties who sometimes claim to 'represent' or act as an 'agent' for an OPCA litigant, or an OPCA litigant employing a 'double/split person' strategy who refuses to identify himself" - See paragraphs 603 to 607.

Courts - Topic 554.1

Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Various groups labelled Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (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 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "it makes sense that a single judge should usually supervise a court proceeding in which OPCA activities have emerged, and that action is an ongoing process. This may be achieved by having a judge seize themselves of the matter, or a more formal process such as assigning a case management judge - in our court, the former converts into the latter. This has a further advantage in that the judge then will have a direct opportunity to observe the activity and development of in-court OPCA litigant strategies and conduct." - See paragraphs 610 to 611.

Courts - Topic 554.1

Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Various groups labelled Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (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 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "these arguments and concepts should be disposed of in as direct a manner as possible that: 1. protects the rights of those persons and entities who are the target of OPCA schemes and harassment by OPCA litigants; 2. minimizes misuse and waste of court and state resources; and 3. sends a clear message that these schemes do not work, and that the misuse of court procedures and processes in this manner will not be tolerated." - See paragraph 625.

Courts - Topic 554.1

Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - Various groups labelled Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigants (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 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench expressed concerned that OPCA documents were being notarized by some lawyers - The court stated that "as an officer of the court each lawyer has certain duties not only to the client, but also to the justice system as a whole. ... One duty is not to participate in or facilitate OPCA schemes. ... Alberta Justice has instructed lay notaries to not endorse documents of this kind ... This court has, on previous instances, drawn to the attention of the Law Society of Alberta that this kind of action is inappropriate for an officer of the court. It assists implementation of vexatious litigation strategies. In my view, a lawyer has a positive duty not to engage in a step that would 'formalize' (though typically in a legally irrelevant manner) an OPCA document" - See paragraphs 642 to 645.

Damages - Topic 1101

Liquidated damages - Defined - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "damages for breach of contract should, as far as money can do it, place the plaintiff in the same position as if the contract had been performed. That does not preclude persons who contract setting damages in advance, what is sometimes called 'liquidated damages'. However, even liquidated damages must be reasonable , and not a threat held over one party, ' in terrorem ' ... Whether a predetermined damage amount is reasonable is always subject to court review" - See paragraphs 512, 513.

Damages - Topic 1299.1

Exemplary or punitive damages - Abuse of process - [See fourth Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 8

General principles and definitions - Effect of noncompliance with the rules - [See eighth Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 1005

Parties - Parties unrepresented by counsel - Vexatious litigant - [See first Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - [See fourth Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 5361

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Abuse of process - [See fourth Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 5370

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

Practice - Topic 7029

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to - Successful party - Exceptions - Novel or important point - [See sixth Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 7454

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement to solicitor and client costs - Improper, irresponsible or unconscionable conduct - [See sixth Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 7767

Costs - Special orders - Abuse of process - [See sixth Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 7803

Costs - Solicitor and his own client costs - Entitlement to - General - [See sixth Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 8120.4

Costs - Security for costs - General principles - Where claim frivolous or vexatious - [See seventh Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Warman (E.-G.), 2000 BCPC 22, affd. [2001] B.C.A.C. Uned. 101; 2001 BCCA 510, refd to. [para. 82].

Warman v. Warman, 2005 CHRT 36, refd to. [para. 82].

Warman v. Warman, 2005 CHRT 43, refd to. [para. 82].

Jackson v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency et al. (2001), 210 Sask.R. 285; 2001 SKQB 377, refd to. [para. 82].

Henry et al. v. Starwood Hotels et al., [2010] A.R. Uned. 678; 2010 ABCA 367, leave to appeal refused (2011), 422 N.R. 386; 513 A.R. 404; 530 W.A.C. 404 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 83].

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. 83].

Bloom v. Canada et al., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 1308; 2011 ONSC 1308, refd to. [para. 83].

Sandri v. Canada (Attorney General) (2009), 179 A.C.W.S.(3d) 811 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 83].

Pappas v. Canada, [2006] G.S.T.C. 161; 2006 TCC 692, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Lindsay (D.K.), [2009] 1 C.T.C. 86; 2008 BCPC 203, affd. [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 831; [2010] 5 C.T.C. 174; 2010 BCSC 831, affd. (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. 83].

Szoo v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al., [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 696; 2011 BCSC 696, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Porisky (R.A.) et al., [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 67; 2012 D.T.C. 5037; 2012 BCSC 67, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Porisky (R.A.) et al., [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 771; 2012 BCSC 771, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Klundert (J.) (2008), 244 O.A.C. 377; 93 O.R.(3d) 81; 2008 ONCA 767, leave to appeal denied (2009), 396 N.R. 390; 260 O.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Pinno (R.), [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 213; [2003] 3 C.T.C. 308; 2002 SKPC 118, refd to. [para. 92].

Kennedy v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2000] 4 C.T.C. 186; 2000 D.T.C. 6524 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Lawson (K.D.), [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 356; 2012 D.T.C. 5069; 2012 BCSC 356, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. McCartie (C.), [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 928; 2012 BCSC 928, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Lindsay (D.K.) (2004), 187 Man.R.(2d) 236; 330 W.A.C. 236; 2004 MBCA 147, refd to. [para. 100].

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 BCCA 214, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Lindsay (D.K.) (2006), 224 B.C.A.C. 172; 370 W.A.C. 172; 265 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 2006 BCCA 150, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Lindsay (D.K.) (2008), 250 B.C.A.C. 270; 416 W.A.C. 270; 2008 BCCA 30, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Dick (E.) (2002), 163 B.C.A.C. 62; 267 W.A.C. 62; 2002 BCCA 27, leave to appeal refused (2002), 302 N.R. 196; 182 B.C.A.C. 159; 300 W.A.C. 159 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lindsay (2007), 238 B.C.A.C. 254; 393 W.A.C. 254; 2007 BCCA 165, leave to appeal refused (2007), 381 N.R. 400; 264 B.C.A.C. 320; 445 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 103].

Superior Filter Recycling Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue, 2005 D.T.C. 1426; 2005 TCC 638, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Meikle (N.H.), [2009] 1 C.T.C. 184; 2008 BCPC 265, affd. [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1540; [2010] 2 C.T.C. 76; 2009 BCSC 1540, affd. in part [2010] B.C.A.C. Uned. 62; [2010] D.T.C. 5140; 2010 BCCA 337, refd to. [para. 104].

Coulbeck v. Governing Council of the University of Toronto et al., [2005] O.T.C. Uned. 843; 142 A.C.W.S.(3d) 889; 145 A.C.W.S.(3d) 393 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Dick, [2003] 1 C.T.C. 277; 2000 BCPC 221, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. J.B.C. Securities Ltd. et al. (2003), 261 N.B.R.(2d) 199; 685 A.P.R. 199; 2003 NBCA 53, refd to. [para. 104].

Canadian Western Bank v. Ricci, [2003] O.T.C. Uned. 727 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Gibbs, 2002 BCPC 703, refd to. [para. 104].

Audcent v. Maleki, [2007] 1 C.T.C. 212; 2006 ONCJ 401, refd to. [para. 104].

Canada v. Galbraith, [2001] B.C.T.C. 675; 54 W.C.B.(2d) 504; 2001 BCSC 675, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Main (J.) (2000), 259 A.R. 163; 2000 ABQB 56, refd to. [para. 104].

Hill v. Hill (2008), 306 Sask.R. 259; 2008 SKQB 11, refd to. [para. 104].

Warman v. Icke et al., [2009] O.T.C. Uned. L24 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 104].

Ambrosi v. Duckworth et al., [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1582; 2011 BCSC 1582, refd to. [para. 104].

Superior Filter Recycling Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue, [2006] N.R. Uned. 90; [2006] 5 C.T.C. 85; 2006 FCA 248, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Linehan (G.) (2000), 276 A.R. 383; 2000 ABQB 815, refd to. [para. 104].

Law Society of British Columbia v. Dempsey, [2005] B.C.T.C. 1277; 142 A.C.W.S.(3d) 346; 2005 BCSC 1277, affd. [2006] B.C.A.C. Uned. 29; 149 A.C.W.S.(3d) 735; 2006 BCCA 161, refd to. [para. 109].

Dempsey v. Casey et al., [2004] B.C.A.C. Uned. 140; 132 A.C.W.S.(3d) 833; 2004 BCCA 395, refd to. [para. 110].

Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. 750; 151 A.C.W.S.(3d) 203; 2006 BCSC 750, refd to. [para. 111].

Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. 680; 60 B.C.L.R.(4th) 309; 2006 BCSC 1324, refd to. [para. 111].

Gravlin et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 839; 140 A.C.W.S.(3d) 447; 2005 BCSC 839, refd to. [para. 111].

Ancheta v. Joe et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 93; 11 B.C.L.R.(4th) 348; 2003 BCSC 93, refd to. [para. 111].

Ancheta v. Joe et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. Uned. 677; 20 B.C.L.R.(4th) 382; 2003 BCSC 1597, refd to. [para. 111].

Ancheta v. Ready et al. (2005), 213 B.C.A.C. 21; 352 W.A.C. 21; 2005 BCCA 232, refd to. [para. 111].

Ancheta v. Kropp et al., [2004] B.C.T.C. Uned. 22; 128 A.C.W.S.(3d) 175; 2004 BCSC 60, refd to. [para. 111].

Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. 723; 160 A.C.W.S.(3d) 962; 2007 BCSC 1276, refd to. [para. 121].

United States of America v. Emery et al. [2005] B.C.T.C. 1192; 70 W.C.B.(2d) 37; 2005 BCSC 1192, refd to. [para. 121].

Warman, Re, [2000] A.R. Uned. 480; 48 W.C.B.(2d) 194; 2000 ABPC 181, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Kaasgaard (E.), [2011] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 73; 2011 MBQB 256, refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Reddick (R.), [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 116; 54 W.C.B.(2d) 646; 2002 SKCA 89, refd to. [para. 130].

Dirks (Bankrupt), Re, [2007] Sask.R. Uned. 17; 31 C.B.R.(5th) 192; 2007 SKQB 124 (Bktcy. Registrar), refd to. [para. 140].

R. v. Lemieux (G.) et al., [2007] Sask.R. Uned. 124; [2008] 2 C.T.C. 291; 2007 SKPC 135, refd to. [para. 140].

R. v. Nagel (D.) (2010), 362 Sask.R. 145; 500 W.A.C. 145; 2010 SKCA 118, refd to. [para. 140].

Minister of National Revenue v. Stanchfield (2009), 340 F.T.R. 150; 2009 FC 99, refd to. [para. 140].

National Leasing Group Inc. v. Top West Ventures Ltd. (2001), 102 A.C.W.S.(3d) 303; 2001 BCSC 111, refd to. [para. 143].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Chesney, [2001] B.C.T.C. Uned. 153; 104 A.C.W.S.(3d) 826; 2001 BCSC 625 (Master), refd to. [para. 143].

Borkovic v. Laurentian Bank of Canada et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 337; 103 A.C.W.S.(3d) 700; 2001 BCSC 337, refd to. [para. 143].

Underworld Services Ltd. v. Money Stop Ltd. et al. (2012), 545 A.R. 102; 2012 ABQB 327, refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Turnnir, 2011 TCC 495, refd to. [para. 144].

Mercedes-Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 452 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 154].

Bank of Montreal v. McCance, [2012] A.R. Uned. 635; 2012 ABQB 537 (Master), refd to. [para. 161].

Hajdu v. Family Responsibility Office (Ont.), [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 1835; 2012 ONSC 1835, refd to. [para. 161].

C.C. v. J.M. (2010), 351 Sask.R. 55; 2010 SKQB 79, refd to. [para. 161].

Shakes v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 CanLII 60494 (I.R.B.), refd to. [para. 161].

MBNA Canada Bank v. Luciani, [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 6347; 2011 ONSC 6347, refd to. [para. 163].

Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. Bydeley, 2010 ONCJ 740, affd. 2011 ONCJ 842, affd. [2011] O.J. No. 6282 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 163].

Sydorenko v. Manitoba et al., [2012] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 15; 2012 MBQB 42 (Master), refd to. [para. 163].

R. v. Klundert (J.) (2004), 190 O.A.C. 36; 242 D.L.R.(4th) 644 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2005), 339 N.R. 198; 206 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 171].

R. v. Amell (D.P.) et al. (2010), 361 Sask.R. 61; 2010 SKPC 107, refd to. [para. 171].

R. v. Turnnir, 2006 BCPC 460, refd to. [para. 171].

Australian Competition and Comsumer Commission v. Rana, [2008] F.C.A. 374 (Aust.), refd to. [para. 173].

Glew v. White, [2012] W.A.S.C.A. 138, refd to. [para. 173].

Van den Hoorn v. Ellis, [2010] Q.D.C. 451, refd to. [para. 173].

Harper v. Atchison et al. (2011), 369 Sask.R. 134; 2011 SKQB 38, refd to. [para. 173].

R. v. McCormick (D.W.) (2012), 317 N.S.R.(2d) 273; 1003 A.P.R. 273; 2012 NSCA 58, refd to. [para. 174].

R. v. McCormick (D.W.) (2012), 319 N.S.R.(2d) 17; 1010 A.P.R. 17; 2012 NSSC 288, refd to. [para. 174].

Jabez Financial Services Inc. v. Sponagle (2008), 264 N.S.R.(2d) 224; 847 A.P.R. 224; 2008 NSSC 112, refd to. [para. 174].

R. v. Baldasaro (M.J.) (2009), 265 O.A.C. 75; 2009 ONCA 676, refd to. [para. 184].

R. v. Tucker (W.) et al., [2006] O.T.C. 134; 68 W.C.B.(2d) 787 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2006), 216 O.A.C. 68; 213 C.C.C.(3d) 89 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2007), 366 N.R. 397; 229 O.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 184].

R. v. Baldasaro (M.J.) - see R. v. Tucker et al.

Tucker et al. v. Canada (2003), 239 F.T.R. 81; 2003 FC 1008, refd to. [para. 184].

R. v. Fehr (G.D.S.) (2004), 368 A.R. 122; 2004 ABQB 859, refd to. [para. 185].

Henry Estate v. Alberta Health Services et al., [2011] A.R. Uned. 194; 2011 ABQB 113 (Master), refd to. [para. 191].

R. v. Sargent, [2005] 1 C.T.C. 448; 2004 ONCJ 356, refd to. [para. 210].

Papadopoulos v. Borg et al., [2009] A.R. Uned. 74; 2009 ABCA 201, refd to. [para. 216].

R. v. Jebbett (M.) (2003), 180 B.C.A.C. 21; 297 W.A.C. 21; 2003 BCCA 69, refd to. [para. 228].

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 D.T.C. 5141; 2010 BCCA 391, refd to. [para. 229].

R. v. Sydel (E.N.M.), [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1473; 2010 D.T.C. 5141; 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. 228].

Summerland (District) v. No Strings Enterprises Ltd. et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 990; 124 A.C.W.S.(3d) 39; 2003 BCSC 990, leave to appeal denied [2004] B.C.A.C. Uned. 125; 131 A.C.W.S.(3d) 994; 2004 BCCA 360, refd to. [para. 228].

R. v. Dick, 2001 BCPC 275, refd to. [para. 228].

Bloom v. Canada, [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 406; [2010] 5 C.T.C. 143; 2010 FC 621, refd to. [para. 240].

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. 243].

Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. Klassen et al. (2004), 364 A.R. 230; 2004 ABQB 463, refd to. [para. 243].

R. v. Martin (D.), [2012] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 199; 2012 NSPC 73, refd to. [para. 243].

R. v. Bruno (F.J.), [2002] B.C.A.C. Uned. 100; 2002 BCCA 348, refd to. [para. 243].

R. v. Gibbs (S.J.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 481; [2006] 3 C.T.C. 223; 2006 BCSC 481, refd to. [para. 243].

Iwanow v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 TCC 22, refd to. [para. 243].

R. v. Fehr (L.L.) (2002), 224 Sask.R. 132; 2002 SKPC 8, refd to. [para. 243].

Minister of National Revenue v. Camplin, [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 94; [2007] 2 C.T.C. 205; 2007 FC 183, refd to. [para. 245].

Services de financement TD inc. v. Michaud, 2011 QCCQ 14868, refd to. [para. 246].

R. v. Jennings (D.F.), [2007] A.R. Uned. 13; 2007 ABCA 45, refd to. [para. 248].

Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al. (2000), 139 O.A.C. 1; 51 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), affd. [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307; 296 N.R. 257; 167 O.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 256].

Friesen v. Canada, [2007] 5 C.T.C. 2067; 2007 TCC 287, refd to. [para. 266].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349; 38 D.L.R.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 266].

Terrasses Jewellers Inc. v. Triglav, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 283; 54 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 270].

Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony et al. v. Alberta, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; 390 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 1; 462 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 278].

O'Sullivan v. Minister of National Revenue (1991), 45 F.T.R. 284; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 124 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 281].

R. v. Demers (J.R.) (2003), 177 B.C.A.C. 16; 291 W.A.C. 16; 2003 BCCA 28, leave to appeal refused (2003), 321 N.R. 399; 206 B.C.A.C. 320; 338 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 281].

Dempsey v. Envision Credit Union et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 1730; 145 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1040; 2005 BCSC 1730, refd to. [para. 283].

Kilini Creek/Patricia Hills Area Landowners v. Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Lac Ste. Anne (County)), [2001] A.R. Uned. 17; 104 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1142; 2001 ABCA 92, refd to. [para. 290].

R. v. Sydel (E.N.M.), [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1470; 2010 BCSC 1470, refd to. [para. 292].

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. 295].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176; 51 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 295].

R. v. Hinse (R.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597; 189 N.R. 321; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 54, refd to. [para. 295].

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, refd to. [para. 295].

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. 295].

R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; 160 N.R. 371; 67 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 295].

Louison v. Ochapowace Indian Band No. 71 et al. (2011), 369 Sask.R. 258; 2011 SKQB 87, affd. (2011), 377 Sask.R. 19; 528 W.A.C. 19; 2011 SKCA 119, refd to. [para. 310].

McAffee v. United States of America (1999), 84 A.F.T.R.2d 99 (N.D. Ga.), refd to. [para. 314].

R. v. McCormick (D.W.), [2012] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 95; 2012 NSSC 150, refd to. [para. 319].

Williams v. Toronto-Dominion Bank et al., [2008] O.T.C. Uned. P28 (Sup. Ct.), affd. [2009] O.A.C. Uned. 220; 176 A.C.W.S.(3d) 609; 2009 ONCA 335, leave to appeal refused (2009), 401 N.R. 395; 267 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 319].

Williams v. Johnston - see Williams v. Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.

R. v. Loosdrecht, [2009] 4 C.T.C. 49; 2008 BCPC 400, refd to. [para. 323].

Family Responsibility Office (Ont.) v. Boyle, [2006] O.T.C. Uned. 605; 149 A.C.W.S.(3d) 127 (Sup. Ct. Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 323].

R. v. Peddle (D.D.) (1999), 244 A.R. 184; 209 W.A.C. 184; 1999 ABCA 284, refd to. [para. 329].

R. v. McMordie (K.) (2001), 155 B.C.A.C. 21; 254 W.A.C. 21; 2001 BCCA 412, refd to. [para. 339].

Giagnocavo v. Canada (1995), 95 D.T.C. 5650; 58 A.C.W.S.(3d) 401 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 340].

R. v. Proteau (J.J.), [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 212; [2003] 3 C.T.C. 118; 2002 SKPC 119, refd to. [para. 341].

Bruno v. Canada et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 99; [2000] 2 C.T.C. 16; 2000 BCSC 190, affd. (2002), 162 B.C.A.C. 293; 264 W.A.C. 293; 2002 BCCA 47, refd to. [para. 342].

R. v. Voth (D.M.) (2001), 211 Sask.R. 270; 2001 SKQB 469, affd. (2002), 223 Sask.R. 119; 277 W.A.C. 119; 2002 SKCA 47, refd to. [para. 342].

R. v. Callow (P.), [2000] A.R. Uned. 247; [2000] 3 C.T.C. 427; 2000 ABQB 335, refd to. [para. 343].

R. v. Smith (N.S.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 1493; [2007] 1 C.T.C. 147; 2006 BCSC 1493, leave to appeal refused [2007] B.C.A.C. Uned. 136; [2008] 1 C.T.C. 61; 2007 BCCA 499, refd to. [para. 346].

R. v. Ricci (P.J.), [2005] 1 C.T.C. 40; 190 O.A.C. 375 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2005), 341 N.R. 196; 206 O.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 347].

R. v. Kennedy (R.V.M.) (2004), 207 B.C.A.C. 102; 341 W.A.C. 102; 2004 BCCA 638, leave to appeal refused (2006), 354 N.R. 200; 235 B.C.A.C. 321; 388 W.A.C. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 347].

Ellis v. Chretien (2001), 210 Sask.R. 138; 2001 SKQB 378, affd. (2002), 223 Sask.R. 117; 277 W.A.C. 117; 112 A.C.W.S.(3d) 849; 2002 SKCA 35, refd to. [para. 350].

Ellis v. Canada (Office of the Prime Minister) - see Ellis v. Chretien.

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1; 150 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 352].

Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; 43 N.R. 451; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 353].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Law Society of British Columbia - see Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia.

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 355].

Valin v. Langlois (1879), 3 S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 356].

Board v. Board, [1919] A.C. 956 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 364].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 367].

Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; 216 N.R. 1; 158 Sask.R. 81; 153 W.A.C. 81; 149 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 368].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 291 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 369].

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 495; 198 N.R. 161; 78 B.C.A.C. 162; 128 W.A.C. 162; 136 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 372].

783783 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2010), 482 A.R. 136; 490 W.A.C. 136; 322 D.L.R.(4th) 56; 2010 ABCA 226, refd to. [para. 373].

Twinn et al. v. Public Trustee (Alta.) (2012), 543 A.R. 90; 2012 ABQB 365, refd to. [para. 373].

1985 Sawridge Trust v. Public Trustee (Alta.) - see Twinn et al. v. Public Trustee (Alta.).

Banilevic v. Revenue Canada et al., [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 169; 117 A.C.W.S.(3d) 549; 2002 SKQB 371, refd to. [para. 388].

R. v. Boisjoli, 2012 ABQB 556, refd to. [para. 409].

Silver's Garage Ltd. v. Bridgewater (Town), [1971] S.C.R. 577; 2 N.S.R.(2d) 474, refd to. [para. 40].

Ghitter (Ron) Property Consultants Ltd. v. Beaver Lumber Co. (2003), 330 A.R. 353; 299 W.A.C. 353; 2003 ABCA 221, refd to. [para. 461].

Cypress Disposal Ltd. v. Inland Kentworth Sales (Nanaimo) Ltd., [1975] 3 W.W.R. 289; 54 D.L.R.(3d) 598 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 464].

Felthouse v. Bindley (1862), 11 C.B.(N.S.) 869; 142 E.R. 1037 (Ex Ch.), refd to. [para. 465].

Schiller, First Devenshire Building Corp. Ltd. and NuTowne Developments Inc. v. Fisher, Ru-More Investments Ltd. and Kingsmont Properties Ltd., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 593; 37 N.R. 350; 124 D.L.R.(3d) 577, refd to. [para. 468].

Pumphrey v. Carson (2002), 206 N.S.R.(2d) 338; 645 A.P.R. 338; 2002 NSSC 170, refd to. [para. 468].

Gellen v. Public Guardian and Trustee (B.C.) et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 1615; 21 E.T.R.(3d) 146; 2005 BCSC 1615, refd to. [para. 468].

Vollmer v. Jones, [2007] O.T.C. Uned. A88; 36 R.F.L.(6th) 340; 155 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1079 (Sup. Ct. Fam. Ct.), refd to. [para. 468].

Saint John Tugboat Co. v. Irving Refining Ltd., [1964] S.C.R. 614, refd to. [para. 469].

R. v. S.F.L., [2008] Sask.R. Uned. 35; 77 W.C.B.(2d) 323; 2008 SKQB 123, refd to. [para. 492].

R. v. Rudolf (J.K.) et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 565; 2010 BCSC 565, refd to. [para. 511].

Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 3; 350 N.R. 40; 227 B.C.A.C. 39; 374 W.A.C. 39; 2006 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 512].

Thermidaire Corp. v. Clarke (H.F.) Ltd., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 319; 3 N.R. 133; 54 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 513].

Dunlop Pneumatic Tire Co. v. New Garage and Motor Co., [1915] A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 514].

Andrews et al. v. Grand and Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452, refd to. [para. 516].

Ward v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 28; 404 N.R. 1; 290 B.C.A.C. 222; 491 W.A.C. 222; 2010 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 517].

United States of America v. Heath (2008), 525 F.3d 451 (6th Cir.), refd to. [para. 532].

United States of America v. Anderson (2003), 353 F.3d 490 (6th Cir.), refd to. [para. 532].

United States of America v. Anderson (2004), 541 U.S. 1068, refd to. [para. 532].

United States of America v. Oehler (2003), 2003 WL 1824967 (D. Minn.), affd. (2004), 116 Fed. Appx. 43 (8th Cir.), refd to. [para. 532].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Marples, [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 306; 2008 BCSC 590, refd to. [para. 542].

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Di Iorio, [2011] O.A.C. Uned. 694; 2011 ONCA 792, refd to. [para. 544].

Tuck v. Canada, 2007 TCC 418, refd to. [para. 554].

Hovey Ventures Inc. v. Canada, 2007 TCC 139; 2007 CCI 139, refd to. [para. 554].

Country Plaza Motors Ltd. et al. v. Indian Head (Town) et al. (2005), 272 Sask.R. 198; 2005 SKQB 442, refd to. [para. 554].

Serdahely Estate, Re (2008), 453 A.R. 337; 2008 ABQB 472, refd to. [para. 555].

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

R. v. Breakell (M.A.) et al. (2009), 454 A.R. 205; 455 W.A.C. 205; 2009 ABCA 173, refd to. [para. 564].

R. v. Montague (W.B.) (2010), 260 O.A.C. 12; 2010 ONCA 141, refd to. [para. 565].

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. 571].

Mercedes-Benz Financial v. Kovacevic, [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 521; 308 D.L.R.(4th) 562; 74 C.P.C.(6th) 326 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 576].

McMeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al. (2012), 537 A.R. 136; 2012 ABQB 144, refd to. [para. 588].

Kisikawpimootewin v. Canada, [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 818; 134 A.C.W.S.(3d) 396; 2004 FC 1426, refd to. [para. 590].

Polar Ice Express Inc. v. Arctic Glacier Inc. (2009), 446 A.R. 295; 442 W.A.C. 295; 2009 ABCA 20, refd to. [para. 591].

Richard v. Time Inc. et al. (2012), 427 N.R. 203; 342 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 2012 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 592].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 592].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595; 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 592].

Grant v. Grant, [2010] A.R. Uned. 931; 1 R.F.L.(7th) 203; 2010 ABQB 735, refd to. [para. 595].

Brown v. Silvera (2010), 488 A.R. 22; 2010 ABQB 224, refd to. [para. 596].

Walsh v. Mobil Oil Canada et al. (2008), 440 A.R. 199; 438 W.A.C. 199; 2008 ABCA 268, refd to. [para. 597].

Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd. et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 303; 316 N.R. 265; 184 O.A.C. 209; 2004 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 597].

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 597].

Colborne Capital Corp. et al. v. 542775 Alberta Ltd. et al. (1999), 228 A.R. 201; 188 W.A.C. 201; 1999 ABCA 14, refd to. [para. 597].

College of Physicians and Surgeons (Alta.) v. J.H. et al. (2009), 468 A.R. 101; 2009 ABQB 48, refd to. [para. 597].

Foulis v. Robinson (1978), 21 O.R.(2d) 769; 92 D.L.R.(3d) 134 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 597].

Max Sonnenberg Inc. v. Stewart, Smith (Canada) Ltd., [1987] 2 W.W.R. 75; 48 Alta. L.R.(2d) 367 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 597].

Olson v. New Home Certification Program of Alberta (1986), 69 A.R. 356; 44 Alta. L.R.(2d) 207 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 597].

Dusik v. Newton (1984), 51 B.C.L.R. 217; 24 A.C.W.S.(2d) 465 (S.C.), varied in part (1985), 62 B.C.L.R. 1; 31 A.C.W.S.(2d) 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 597].

Pharand Ski Corp. v. Alberta (1991), 122 A.R. 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 597].

Pharand Ski Corp. v. Alberta (1991), 122 A.R. 395 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 597].

Jackson and Parkview Holdings Ltd. v. Trimac Industries Ltd. et al. (1993), 138 A.R. 161; 8 Alta. L.R.(3d) 403 (Q.B.), affd. (1994), 155 A.R. 42; 73 W.A.C. 42; 20 Alta. L.R.(3d) 117 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 597].

Pollock v. Liberty Technical Services Ltd. et al., [1997] A.R. Uned. 122; 50 Alta. L.R.(3d) 335; 71 A.C.W.S.(3d) 20 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 604].

A.S. v. N.L.H. et al. (2006), 405 A.R. 35; 2006 ABQB 708, refd to. [para. 604].

R. v. Romanowicz (J.) (1999), 124 O.A.C. 100; 45 O.R.(3d) 506; 178 D.L.R.(4th) 466 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 616].

R. v. L'Espinay (E.C.), 2005 BCPC 662, affd. (2008), 250 B.C.A.C. 211; 416 W.A.C. 211; 228 C.C.C.(3d) 129, leave to appeal denied (2012), 432 N.R. 400; 324 B.C.A.C. 320; 551 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 618].

R. v. Phillips (M.A.) (2003), 320 A.R. 172; 288 W.A.C. 172; 2003 ABCA 4, affd. [2003] 2 S.C.R. 623; 311 N.R. 94; 339 A.R. 50; 312 W.A.C. 50; 2003 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 628].

Cold Lake First Nations v. Alberta (Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation) et al. (2012), 522 A.R. 159; 544 W.A.C. 159; 2012 ABCA 36, refd to. [para. 628].

McMeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General) (2012), 543 A.R. 132; 2012 ABQB 456, refd to. [para. 630].

Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada et al. (2002), 303 A.R. 43; 273 W.A.C. 43; 2002 ABCA 110, refd to. [para. 632].

Waquan v. Canada - see Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada et al.

Madill v. Alexander Consulting Group Ltd et al. (1999), 237 A.R. 307; 197 W.A.C. 307; 71 Alta. L.R.(3d) 50 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 632].

Paniccia Estate et al. v. Toal (2012), 521 A.R. 73; 2012 ABQB 11, refd to. [para. 665].

Paniccia Estate et al. v. Toal (2012), 541 A.R. 300; 2012 ABQB 367, refd to. [para. 665].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Burroughs, William S., Naked Lunch (1962), p. 11 [para. 671].

Chamberlain, Robert, and Haider-Markel, Donald P., Lien on Me: State Policy Innovation in Response to Paper Terrorism (2005), 58 Political Research Quarterly 449, pp. 449 to 460 [para. 181].

Cheshire, Geoffrey Chevalier, Fifoot, Cecil Hubert Stuart, and Furmston, Michael P., The Law of Contract (15th Ed. 2007), p. 61 [para. 467].

Cིཾté, Jean, Words That Bind: Words and Phrases Judicially Considered by the Supreme Court of Canada and by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to 1949 (2011), generally [para. 334].

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (5th Ed. 2006), p. 54 [para. 467].

Haynie, Erick J., Populism, Free Speech, and the Rule of Law: The "Fully Informed" Jury Movement and Its Implications (1997), 88 J. of Criminal Law and Criminology 343, pp. 343 to 379 [para. 181].

Hobbs, Thomas, Leviathan (2008), pp. 87, 147, 184 [para. 1].

Jacob, I.H., The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court (1970), 23 Current Legal Problems 23, generally [paras. 295, 358].

Koniak, Susan P., When Law Risks Madness (1996), 8 Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 65, pp. 65 to 138 [para. 181].

Saunders, John B., Words and Phrases Legally Defined (3rd Ed. 2007), generally [para. 334].

Silversmith, Jol A., The "Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility (1999), 8 Southern California Interdisciplinary L.J. 577, generally [para. 301].

Swan, Angela, Canadian Contract Law (2nd Ed. 2009), p. 234 [para. 467].

Waddams, Stephen M., The Law of Contracts (6th Ed. 2010), pp. 67, 68 [para. 467].

Counsel:

Michele J. Reeves (Attia Reeves Tensfeldt Snow), for the applicant;

Dennis Larry Meads, self-represented.

This application was heard on June 8, 2012, before Rooke, A.C.J.Q.B., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on September 18, 2012.

Table of Contents

-	Para.
I. Introduction to Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument ["OPCA"] Litigants	1
II. The Present Litigation	8
--A. Prior Activity	11
--B. The June 8, 2012 Hearing	12
--C. Subsequent Developments	37
--D. The Purposes of These Reasons	45
---1. Ms. Meads	47
---2. Mr. Meads	49
---3. A Broad Set of OPCA Concepts and Materials	53
---4. Mr. Meads Faces No Unexpected Sanction	58
III. Overview of these Reasons	60
IV. The OPCA Phenomenon	67
--A. Characteristics of OPCA Group Members	81
--B. The OPCA Guru	85
---1. Russell Porisky and the Paradigm Education Group	87
---2. Other Canadian Gurus	99
----a. David Kevin Lindsay	100
----b. John Ruiz Dempsey	109
----c. Robert Arthur Menard	121
----d. Eldon Gerald Warman	125
----e. David J. Lavigne	130
----f. Edward Jay Robin Belanger	134
----g. Other Gurus	140
----h. Mr. Meads' Guru	146
---3. How Gurus Operate	154
--C. OPCA Litigants	159
--D. OPCA Movements	168
---1. Detaxers	169
---2. Freemen-on-the-Land	172
---3. Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens	176
---4. The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International ["CERI"]	183
---5. Moorish Law	189
---6. Conclusion - OPCA Movements	197
V. Indicia of OPCA Litigants, Litigation, and Strategies	199
--A. Documentary Material	203
---1. Name Motifs	206
---2. Document Formalities and Markings	214
---3. Specific Phrases and Language	220
---4. Legislation and Legal Documents	228
---5. Atypical Mailing Addresses	231
---6. Conclusion and Summary of Documentary Indicia	238
--B. In Court Conduct	242
---1. Demands	243
---2. Documentation	244
---3. Names and Identification	245
---4. Court Authority or Jurisdiction	248
---5. Other In-Court Motifs	249
---6. Summary of In-Court Indicia	250
--C. Conclusion - OPCA Indicia	254
---1. Procedural Responses to Suspected OPCA Documents	256
---2. Courtroom Procedure Responses to Suspected OPCA Litigants	257
VI. OPCA Concepts and Arguments	264
--A. The Litigant is Not Subject to Court Authority	267
---1. Restricted Court Jurisdiction	268
----a. Admiralty or Military Courts	269
----b. Notaries are the Real Judges	273
----c. Religion or Religious Belief Trumps the Courts	276
---2. Defective Court Authority	286
----a. Oaths	287
----b. The Court Proves It Has Jurisdiction and Acts Fairly	291
----c. Court Formalities	293
----d. The State is Defective	298
----e. Conclusion - Defective Court Authority	300
---3. Immune to Court Jurisdiction - 'Magic Hats'	302
----a. I Belong to an Exempt Group	307
----b. I Declare Myself Immune	317
----c. I Have Been Incorrectly Identified	322
----d. I Am Subject to a Different Law	325
----e. Conscientious Objector	338
----f. Tax-Related 'Magic Hats'	341
----g. Miscellaneous	348
---4. The Inherent Authority of Provincial Superior Courts	351
----a. Superior Courts of Inherent Jurisdiction	352
----b. Procedural Jurisdiction	358
----c. Subject Jurisdiction	362
----d. Inherent Jurisdiction vs. OPCA Strategies and Concepts	374
--B. Obligation Requires Agreement	379
---1. Defeating Legislation	382
---2. Everything is a Contract	388
---3. Consent is Required	405
---4. Conclusion - Obligation Requires Agreement	411
---5. Court Misconduct by 'Everything is a Contract' and 'Consent is Required' Litigants	414
--C. Double/Split Persons	417
---1. Unshackling the Strawman	424
---2. Dividing Oneself	428
---3. In-Court Behaviour of the Divided Person	440
---4. Conclusion - Double/Split Person Schemes	445
--D. Unilateral Agreements	447
---1. The Legal Effect of a Foisted Agreement	458
---2. Common Uses of Unilateral Agreements	473
----a. To Create or Assert an Obligation	474
----b. To Discharge an Obligation or Dismiss a Lawsuit	487
----c. Foisted Duties, Agency, or Fiduciary Status	492
----d. Copyright and Trade-mark	494
---3. Fee Schedules	505
----a. Disproportionate and Unlawful Penalties	512
----b. The Targets and Intended Effect of 'Fee Schedules'	519
---4. Effect of Unilateral Agreements	524
--E. Money for Nothing Schemes	529
---1. Accept for Value / A4V	531
---2. Bill Consumer Purchases	544
---3. Miscellaneous Money for Nothing Schemes	548
--F. Legal Effect and Character of OPCA Arguments	551
---1. OPCA Strategies that Deny Court Authority	551
----a. An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority Cannot Succeed Due to the Court's Inherent Authority	552
----b. An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority is Intrinsically Frivolous and Vexatious	554
----c. An OPCA Argument that Denies Court Authority May Be Contempt of Court Authority	557
-----i. Denial of Tax Obligation Evades Tax	559
-----ii. Denial of Firearms Restrictions Proves Intent for Illegal Possession	565
-----iii. Denial of Court Authority May Prove the Intent to Engage in Contempt of Court	567
-----iv. Other Government Authorities	579
---2. Other OPCA Strategies	582
---3. Responses to OPCA Strategies	586
----a. Strike Actions, Motions, and Defences	587
----b. Punitive Damages	591
----c. Elevated Costs	594
----d. Order Security for Costs	601
----e. Fines	603
----f. One Judge Remaining on a File	608
---4. Responses to OPCA Litigants and Gurus	612
----a. Vexatious Litigant Status	612
----b. Deny Status as a Representative	614
---5. Conclusion - Responses to OPCA Litigation and Litigants	619
VII. Review	622
--A. Judiciary	628
--B. Lawyers	642
---1. A Lawyer's Duties	642
----a. Notarization of OPCA Materials	643
----b. Triage: Identification of Legal Issues	646
---2. Education	648
----a. Judges and Courts	648
----b. The OPCA Litigant	656
---3. Conclusion - Lawyers and OPCA Litigation	658
--C. 'Target' Litigants	662
--D. OPCA Litigants	663
--E. OPCA Gurus	669
VIII. Application of These Reasons to the Meads v. Meads Litigation	676
--A. Ms. Meads	677
---1. Case Management	677
---2. Disclosure by Mr. Meads	682
---3. Ongoing Communication with Mr. Meads	684
--B. Mr. Meads	685
---1. Pre-Hearing Activities	686
----a. The February 15, 2011 Document	687
----b. The March 3, 2011 Document	695
----c. The April 27, 2012 Documents	701
---2. The June 8, 2012 Hearing	714
---3. The June 19 and June 21, 2012 Documents	721
---4. Conclusion	730
Appendix "A" - Meads' Fee Schedule	736
Appendix "B" - Meads' Copyright and Trademark Notice	736

Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice.

Force, and fraud, are in war the two cardinal virtues.

...

The laws are of no power to protect them, without a sword in the hands of a man, or men, to cause those laws to be put in execution.

...

And law was brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular men in such manner as they might not hurt, but assist one another, and join together against a common enemy.