Date:
20130531
Docket:
T-533-13
Citation:
2013 FC 590
Vancouver, British Columbia,
May 31, 2013
PRESENT: Roger
R. Lafrenière, Esquire
Prothonotary
BETWEEN:
|
|
‘MAITREYA’ ISIS MARYJANE
BLACKSHEAR,
THE DIVINE HOLY MOTHER
OF ALL IN/OF CREATION’ AND
ALL ISIS NATION ESTATES
|
|
|
|
Plaintiffs
|
|
and
|
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ET AL
CANADA MINISTER OF JUSTICE
AND ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROBERT DOUGLAS NICHOLSON
CANADA DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE
AND ATTORNEY GENERAL
WILLIAM F. PENTNEY
ALBERTA MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND
SOLICITOR GENERAL JONATHAN DENIS ALBERTA DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE RAY
BODNAREK
|
|
|
|
Defendants
|
REASONS FOR
ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Alberta, the
Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta and the Deputy Minister of
Justice of Alberta (hereinafter referred to as the Alberta Crown) seek an order
to strike the Second Amended Statement of Claim under Rule 221(1) of the Federal Courts Rules (FCR), on the
grounds that the pleading does not disclose a reasonable cause of action (Rule
221(1)(a)), and is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious (Rule 221(1)(c)).
[2]
The principles applicable on a motion to strike
are well known and not in dispute. On a motion
to strike out a
pleading under Rule 221(1)(a), the applicable test is whether it is “plain and
obvious” that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action: see Hunt v
Carey, 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC),
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, [1990] SCJ No. 93 at paragraph 32 (QL). A pleading may also
be struck out on the grounds that it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
pursuant to Rule 221(1)(c) where the pleadings are so deficient in
material facts that the defendant cannot know how to answer: Kisikawpimootewin
v Canada, 2004 FC 1426 (CanLII).
[3]
On a motion to strike a pleading on the grounds that it does not
disclose a reasonable cause of action, those allegations that are capable
of being proved must be taken as true: Hunt v Carey Canada Inc [1990] 2
SCR 959. This rule does not apply, however, to allegations based on assumptions
and speculation: Operation Dismantle Inc v The Queen (1985), 18 DLR
(4th) 481 (SCC) at 486-487 and 490-491. The Statement of Claim should also be
read generously with allowance for inadequacies due to drafting deficiencies. However, the Court need not accept at face value bare
allegations, factual allegations which may be regarded as scandalous, frivolous
or vexatious, or legal submissions dressed up as factual allegations.
[4]
The allegations set out in the 84 page pleading are for the most
part unintelligible and consequently difficult to summarize. The Plaintiff
states that she is the “Divine Mother of All in/of Creation”. She also claims
to be the only one authorized and qualified to fill the See of Rome. The
Plaintiff is seeking damages against the Alberta Crown and the Federal Crown on
behalf of “Tiamat Ki-Earths Kaneh Bosm Signatory Tribal Nations’ and
“Independent Spiritual International Signatory (ISIS) Nation Estates” in an
astronomical amount of over one hundred and eight quadrillion dollars. The
Plaintiff claims damages based on breach of covenant, breach of trust,
fiduciary duty and obligations, false imprisonment, and other injustices.
[5]
The Plaintiff also requests that the Defendants immediately cede
to her original and final jurisdiction under Ancient Clanmother Laws; liquidate
all global assets into Equity through the Bank of International Settlements;
immediately acknowledge her as The Divine Holy Mother and cede to her
Matriarchal Society; inform and teach all ISIS Nations Estates about their
inheritance; cease and desist all blasphemy against the Divine Mother, the
Queen of Heaven, delta9Lucifer; announce in both private and public statements
acknowledging her return as The Divine Holy Mother; act in compliance with All
of The General Executrix Administrative Orders; and guarantee the restoration
of her All Signatory Tribal Nations and each and every ISIS Nation Estate to
their immortal, pristine, peaceful, blissful and abundant lives.
[6]
Rule 174 of the FCR requires that every
pleading must contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the
party relies. Rule 181 provides that a pleading must also contain particulars
of every allegation contained therein. Rule 182 states that every statement of
claim must specify the nature of damages claimed. These rules impose an
obligation on a plaintiff to plead material facts that disclose a reasonable
cause of action, which can be broken down into four basic requirements: (a)
every pleading must state facts and not merely conclusions of law; (b) it must
include material facts; (c) it must state facts and not the evidence by which
they are to be proved; and (d) it must state facts concisely in a summary form.
[7]
The Second Amended Statement of Claim breaches
the rules of pleading in every respect. Instead of stating material facts
establishing a reasonable cause of action, it consists of bare assertions, bald
statements and conclusions.
[8]
The Second Amended Statement of Claim is similar to “organized
pseudo-legal commercial argument” or “OPCA” litigation described in the
decision of Associate Chief Justice Rooke of the Court of Queen’s Bench of
Alberta in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 571, [2012]
A.J. No. 980 (QL) (Meads) that has no legal meaning or effect and is
irrelevant.
[9]
The Second Amended Statement of Claim has
several of the indicia of an OPCA strategy including:
(a)
Bizarre naming motifs - within the Statement of
Claim, the Plaintiff refers to herself as:
(i)
The Divine Holy Mother of All in/of Creation
(style of cause);
(ii)
Both God and the Rule of Law (page 1, last
paragraph);
(iii)
The bearer of the sacred C’anupa Peace Pipe
which is the Treaty of Life (page 52-53, paragraph 239);
(iv)
The Head Bear Clanmother of Tiamat Ki-Earths
Kaneh Bosm Tribal Nations (page 80, paragraph i);
(v)
The Mother of the Independent Spiritual
International Signatory (page 80, paragraph 1);
(vi)
The sole Crowned Heir Temple Thorne Scribe (page
81, paragraph k);
(vii)
The Isis Genesis’ Return of the Dragon Queen by
Divine Blood Terra Covenant (page 81, paragraph k); and
(viii)
GEA of the Deed of the Private SUNKE Temple
Trust (page 81, paragraph k).
(b)
Unusual document formalities and markings are
used; for example, stamps from the “DUL” court suggesting the documents have
been filed;
(c)
Unusual specific phrases and language:
“Signatory ISIS Nation Estates” “DNA-Land patent “delta10mDNA”;
(d)
Reference to obsolete, foreign and otherwise
relevant legislation and legal documents: “The Camel’s Eye Treaty 408 A.D.”
“Ancient Clanmother Laws”; and
(e)
An atypical mailing address: “Tribunal for
Tiamat Ki-Earths, Divine Universal Law Courts, DUL Charter Territory Calgary
Alberta”.
[10]
As noted in Meads at para 590:
…when faced with truly baffling OPCA materials, a court may take the
approach applied in Kisikawpimootewin v Canada, 2004 FC 1426 at
para. 9, 134 A.C.W.S. (3d) 396 and strike a proceeding based on
incomprehensible arguments and allegations, where the defendant is “left both
embarrassed and unable to defend itself” and the court faces “a proceeding so
ill-defined that is unable to discern an argument, or identify any specific
material facts.”
[11]
Although not an OPCA claim, this proceeding is based on similar
incomprehensible allegations.
[12]
Further, beyond the adequacy of the pleadings to
support a reasonable cause of action, the Court must also assess the
merits of the claim, and the motives of the Plaintiff in
bringing it. In Pellikaan v Canada, 2002 FCT 221 (CanLII), [2002] 4 FC 169, the late
Prothonotary John Hargarve concluded that a proceeding which the Court would
have difficulty controlling could be struck on the grounds that it is
vexatious. He stated:
Where a statement of claim is
exceedingly general and bereft of specifics so as to present the defendant from
either proper investigation or proper response, it may well be struck out …
such statements of claim (are) fundamentally vexatious for they reveal
insufficient facts to demonstrate the basis for the claim, thus making it
impossible for the defendant to answer the claim or, indeed for a court to
regulate the proceedings. Such a general and all encompassing statement of
claim that is so bereft of particulars that a defendant would be unable to
draft an answer, is fundamentally vexatious and will not lead to any practical
result.
[13]
Finally, the Plaintiff has no standing to bring an action based
on collective rights of aboriginal peoples. Rule 121 requires that a party who
seeks to act in a representative capacity must be represented by a solicitor,
unless the Court in special circumstances orders otherwise.
[14]
The Plaintiff’s action is fundamentally
vexatious and an abuse of the system. In the circumstances, no useful purpose
would be served by making a determination on the issue of whether there is
jurisdiction in this Court to hear the matter as against the Alberta Crown. There
being neither a possibility of a curative amendment, nor any indication that
the action could be instituted again in an acceptable form, the Plaintiff’s
pleadings shall be struck out, without leave to amend.
[15]
As for costs of the motion, I would simply adopt the position
taken by ACJ Rooke in Meads at para 631:
I believe that a key element of an appropriate and successful
response to OPCA litigation is that these proceedings be segregated, where
possible, to minimize their effect on the innocent other parties involved. … A
second aspect is that innocent parties be indemnified for the legal costs
associated with OPCA litigation. No, or little, cost should flow to a litigant
who is abused by OPCA strategies.
ORDER
THIS
COURT ORDERS that:
1.
The
Second Amended Statement of Claim is struck out, without leave to amend.
2.
The
action as against Her Majesty the Queen in right of Alberta, the Minister of
Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta, Jonathan Denis, and the Deputy
Minister of Justice of Alberta, Ray Bodnarek, is dismissed.
3.
Costs
of the motion, hereby fixed in the amount of $500.00, inclusive of
disbursements and taxes, shall be paid by the Plaintiff to the Attorney General
of Alberta.
“Roger R. Lafrenière”
Email this Content