A.N.B. v. Alberta (Minister of Human Services) et al.,

• Judge: Rooke
• Neutral Citation: 2013 ABQB 97
• Subject Matter: COURTS,PRACTICE
• Citation: (2013), 557 A.R. 364 (QB),2013 ABQB 97,557 AR 364,(2013), 557 AR 364 (QB),557 A.R. 364
• Date: 29 January 2013
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

A.N.B. v. Alta. (2013), 557 A.R. 364 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. AP.012

A.N.B. (respondent/plaintiff) v. Dave Hancock, acting as; Honourable Dave Hancock Minister of Human Services, Carol Anne Patenaude, acting as; Carol Anne Patenaude Director of Children and Youth Services, Kathy Campbell, Lise Durand, Tom Sutton, Sue Paddon, Lisa Leavitt, Kerry-Anne Wierenga, Dean Schaff, Melina Long, Pam Vandermeleun, acting as; Agent for the Director of Children and Youth Services, Christina Nicholson, G. Perry, G. Perrault, Jennifer Jackson, acting as; Peace Officer for Redwater RCMP Detachment, Jo Ann T. Quinn, Doug Lewis, Brian Kash, Greg Marchant, acting as; Crown Attorney, Deb Drisell, acting as; Chief Crown Prosecutor, Barb Petryk, acting as; Clerk of the Court/Manager - Provincial Family and Youth Court, P.E. Kvill, J.M. Filice, G.B.N. Ho, acting as; Provincial Family and Youth Court Judge, A.R. (applicants/defendants)

(1203 05969; 2013 ABQB 97)

Indexed As: A.N.B. v. Alberta (Minister of Human Services) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

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

February 12, 2013.

Summary:

The province was granted permanent guardianship of the father's two children. An appeal of that decision was pending. The father commenced a civil action against various government actors and employees involved in the matter, including peace officers, lawyers and judges, claiming a range of illegal conduct entitling him to $20 million damages. The father 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 crux of the father's case was that he was not subject to the laws of the land and the state had no authority to take his children. The various defendants applied to strike the father's statement of claim and supporting affidavit.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and struck the statement of claim. The court rejected all of the OPCA litigant arguments and tactics, the sole purpose of which was to evade the authority of the court and the state. The court awarded the defendants solicitor and own client indemnity costs.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Courts - Topic 554.1

Judges - Powers - To control "organized pseudolegal commercial argument" litigants - The province was granted permanent guardianship of the father's two children - An appeal of that decision was pending - The father commenced a civil action against various government actors and employees involved in the matter, claiming a range of illegal conduct entitling him to $20 million damages - The father 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 - The crux of the father's case was that he was not subject to the laws of the land and the state had no authority to take his children - The various defendants applied to strike the father's statement of claim - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck the statement of claim on multiple grounds - The court rejected all of the OPCA litigant arguments and tactics, the sole purpose of which was to evade the authority of the court and the state - The action was an impermissible collateral attack on the Provincial Court judgment awarding guardianship to the province - The statement of claim made broad allegations, but failed to plead material facts - The alleged criminal acts were not a basis for a civil claim - Tort conspiracy remedies were not available in a family law context - The action was fatally flawed, frivolous and vexatious - The court awarded the defendants solicitor and own client indemnity costs - See paragraphs 36 to 108.

Courts - Topic 689

Judges - Disqualification - Bias - Arising out of participation in prior proceedings - The province was granted permanent guardianship of the father's two children - An appeal of that decision was pending - The father commenced a civil action against various government actors and employees involved in the matter, claiming a range of illegal conduct entitling him to $20 million damages - The father 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 - How to deal with OPCA litigants was dealt with by the trial judge in a previous decision (Meads v. Meads) which was the law in Alberta as it had not been appealed - The father requested that the trial judge (same as in Meads) recuse himself because he had "a sort of personal stake in upholding that decision" and might not be totally objective - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the recusal motion - Any judge would be obligated, by stare decisis, to apply the same law - An informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, would not conclude that it was more likely than not that a judge, whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide the matter fairly - See paragraphs 32 to 35.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - [See Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 2230.3

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to plead material facts - [See Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 2231

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

Practice - Topic 2239.1

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Abuse of process - Hopeless suit - [See Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 5408.1

Judgments and orders - General - Collateral attack - [See Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 7762

Costs - Special orders - Indemnity - [See Courts - Topic 554.1 ].

Practice - Topic 7803

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

Cases Noticed:

Meads v. Meads (2012), 543 A.R. 215; 2012 ABQB 571, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Martin (D.) (2012), 323 N.S.R.(2d) 376; 1025 A.P.R. 376; 2012 NSPC 115, refd to. [para. 16].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259; 309 N.R. 201; 2003 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Lawson (K.D.), [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 356; 2012 D.T.C. 5069; 2012 BCSC 356, refd to. [para. 34].

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. 34].

R. v. Porisky (R.A.) et al., [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 771; 2012 BCSC 771, refd to. [para. 34].

Direct Lumber Co. v. Western Plywood Co., [1962] S.C.R. 646, refd to. [para. 40].

Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191; 145 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 41].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84; 42 D.L.R.(4th) 81, refd to. [para. 42].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 47].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc. et al.

Tottrup v. Lund et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 204; 220 W.A.C. 204; 186 D.L.R.(4th) 226; 2000 ABCA 121, refd to. [para. 47].

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. 47].

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. 50].

British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Figliola - see Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.).

Kisikawpimootewin v. Canada, [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 818; 134 A.C.W.S.(3d) 396; 2004 FC 1426, refd to. [para. 53].

Craik v. Alberta (Treasury Branches) et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 570; 2012 ABQB 373, refd to. [para. 57].

Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 612; 354 N.R. 201; 218 O.A.C. 339; 2006 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. A.N.B., 2012 ABQB 556, refd to. [para. 81].

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. 94].

R. v. McCormick (D.W.) (2012), 319 N.S.R.(2d) 17; 1010 A.P.R. 17; 2012 NSSC 288, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, refd to. [para. 96].

Brown v. Silvera (2010), 488 A.R. 22; 2010 ABQB 224, refd to. [para. 102].

Walsh v. Mobil Oil Canada et al. (2008), 440 A.R. 199; 438 W.A.C. 199; 2008 ABCA 268, refd to. [para. 102].

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. 102].

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, refd to. [para. 102].

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. 102].

College of Physicians and Surgeons (Alta.) v. J.H. et al. (2009), 468 A.R. 101; 2009 ABQB 48, refd to. [para. 102].

Foulis v. Robinson (1979), 21 O.R.(2d) 769; 92 D.L.R.(3d) 134 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

Max Sonnenberg Inc. v. Stewart, Smith (Can.) Ltd., [1987] 2 W.W.R. 75; 48 Alta. L.R.(2d) 367 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 102].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Morris, Thomas D., Southern Slavery and the Law, 1619-1860 (Studies in Legal History) (1999), pp. 43 to 52 [para. 67].

Counsel:

A.N.B., plaintiff, on his own behalf;

Jane Smith (a pseudonym), for the defendants Dave Hancock, Carol Anne Patenaude, Kamthi Campbell, Lise Durand, Tom Sutton, Sue Paddon, Lisa Leavitt, Kerri-Anne Wierenga, Dean Schaff, Melissa Long, Pam Vandermeleun, Doug Lewis, Brian Kash, Greg Marchant and Barb Petryk;

Justice Canada counsel, for Christina Nicholson, G. Perry, G. Perreault and Jennifer Jackson;

Jo-Ann Quinn, for herself;

A.R., for herself.

This application was heard on January 29, 2013, 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 February 12, 2013.