Dockets: T-1287-15
T-1227-15
T-1282-15
T-1309-15
T-1336-15
Citation:
2015 FC 1307
Toronto, Ontario, November 24, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
|
Docket: T-1287-15
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
WALLY DOVE
|
|
Plaintiff
|
|
and
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
|
|
Defendant
|
|
Docket: T-1227-15
|
|
AND BETWEEN:
|
|
JASON DOVE
|
|
Plaintiff
|
|
and
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
|
|
Defendant
|
|
Docket: T-1282-15
|
|
AND BETWEEN:
|
|
MICHAEL BURSEY
|
|
Plaintiff
|
|
and
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
|
|
Defendant
|
|
Docket: T-1309-15
|
|
AND BETWEEN:
|
|
GLENN BURSEY
|
|
Plaintiff
|
|
and
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
|
|
Defendant
|
|
Docket: T-1336-15
|
|
AND BETWEEN:
|
|
MICHAEL BURSEY
|
|
Plaintiff
|
|
and
|
|
HER MAJESTY THE
QUEEN
|
|
Defendant
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
In the Motion presently under consideration, the
Respondent requests an order striking out the Statement of Claim, without leave
to amend, in each of the five actions in this Consolidated Action on the
primary ground that each Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of
action.
[2]
The Motion comes by way of an appeal by the
Plaintiffs from the decision of a Prothonotary of the Court in which the Motion
was granted. On appeal, on my determination that the Motion is vital to the
outcome of each action, the Motion has been heard de novo pursuant to
Rule 51 (1) of the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106 (Rules) (see: Merck
& Co. v Apotex Inc., 2003 FCA 488 at para. 19).
[3]
The Plaintiffs are unrepresented by Counsel, but
on the present appeal each Plaintiff agreed that Mr. Wally Dove, the Plaintiff
in action T-1287-15, would speak on their behalf. Since the Plaintiffs agreed
that the content of the Statement of Claim in each action is essentially the
same as that provided in T-1287-15, it is appropriate that the Statement of
Claim of that action be the focus of the present appeal, and the outcome of
that focus be the same for each action.
I.
The Plaintiffs’ Perspective
[4]
At the hearing of the present Motion, Mr. Dove
spoke well; he was courteous and respectful. To my observation Mr. Dove
presented an honest commitment to, and belief in, the following statement, upon
which the Statements of Claim are based:
Bill in Equity
For purposes of this Instrument, CLAIM
means- A claim is a challenge of the ownership of a thing which a man has not
in possession and is wrongfully withheld by another. Plowd. 359; Wee i
Dall.444; 12 S. & R. 179. _1856 Bouvier's Law Dictionary
The petition of Wally Dove, a private
person, of Minden, in Hailiburton County, Ontario, individually, and as next
friend of Jason Dove, Glenn Bursey and Michael Bursey, respectfully
represents:
1. That the Complainants grant In
Personam jurisdiction to this Honourable Court under the Rules of Equity.
2. That Wally Dove is the father of Jason
Dove and friend of Glenn Bursey who is the father of Michael Bursey, all of
whom live in the geographical area known as Ontario.
3. That the defendant in these matters
claims be the Queen of Canada and represents herself as the Legislative,
Executive and Judicial power for Canada and has delegated Her powers to the
Governor General of Canada, who in turn, delegates certain of those powers to
others who are acting in various capacities within the defendant's agency, the
government of Canada.
4. That all of the Claimants were born as
human beings (see Annex “A” [statements of birth]) and choose to be recognized
as private persons within the geographical land mass known as Canada and were
born free and equal in dignity and rights with all other human beings.
5. That as free born human beings, the
Claimants were with the Power of Attorney (Dominion) from their Creator
over all the land, resources upon the land, resources within the land and
resources underneath the sea ("assets").
6. That the defendant has created a system
of commerce complete with Rules (Acts and Statutes having the force of law),
a Government (delegated the power to carry on the defendant’s business in Canada and govern Her subjects who have consented to be Her subjects), and Fiat
Currency (money), the foundation of the system of commerce.
7. That as a part of the process of
establishing and implementing this system of commerce, the defendant assumed
control over all the land, resources upon the land, resources within the land
and resources underneath the sea. All of which are the "assets"
belonging to the Creator and over which the Complainants have power of Attorney
(Dominion).
8. That the defendant has, and/or Her agents
and/or agencies acting on Her behalf, have seized control and are managing
those “assets” (a Trust) since the inception of the system of commerce
and in the Complainants' case, since their respective dates of birth, or at
least the date of registration of their births.
9. That the defendant has sold a significant
portion of the Complainants' "assets" for money and has kept the
money.
10. Further, the defendant has trespassed
upon the Complainants' fundamental rights and freedoms, thus causing severe
harm and damages.
11. That the Complainants claim the
restoration of their property (including, inter alia, the value of their
"assets" sold to date, care and control of their "assets"
and future returns, as well as their individual fundamental rights and freedoms).
12. The damages are estimated to be the
value of the Bond (Statement of live birth and/or Birth Certificate).
13. In the case of Complainant, Wally Dove,
the value of his Bond is more or less, $522,800,000.00 and the interest earned
to date is more or less, $475,800,000.00. Wally Dove is also entitled to triple
damages of the amount of actual damages sustained by him and the costs of the
action including reasonable attorneys' fees, if applicable.
14. In the case of Complainant, Jason Dove,
amounts and evidence to be presented on November 17, 2015.
15. In the case of Complainant, Glenn
Bursey, amounts and evidence to be presented on November 17, 2015.
16. In the case of Complainant, Michael
Bursey, amounts and evidence to be presented on November 17, 2015.
Dated at Minden the 11th day of
November, 2015
Wally Dove, Human Being (Private Person)
II.
The Claims Based on the Perspective
[5]
The essential claims in Mr. Dove’s Statement of
Claim are set out in the APPENDIX to these reasons.
III.
The Motion to Strike Without Leave to Amend
[6]
In support for the present Motion to strike,
without leave to amend, Counsel for the Respondent relies upon the ground
stated in Rule 221(1)(a) of the Rules:
|
(1) On motion,
the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained
therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it
(a) discloses no
reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be […]
|
(1) À tout moment,
la Cour peut, sur requête, ordonner la radiation de tout ou partie d’un acte
de procédure, avec ou
sans autorisation de
le modifier, au motif, selon le cas:
a) qu’il ne révèle
aucune cause d’action ou de défense valable;
|
In R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd,
2011 SCC 42 at paragraph 17, the test for this ground is stated:
A claim will only be struck if it is
plain and obvious, assuming the facts pleaded to be true, that the pleading
discloses no reasonable cause of action: Odhavji
Estate v.Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, at para. 15; Hunt
v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, at p. 980. Another way of
putting the test is that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success.
Where a reasonable prospect of success exists, the matter should be allowed to
proceed to trial: see, generally, Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D.,
2007 SCC 38, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83 Odhavji Estate; Hunt; Attorney General of
Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735.
[Emphasis added]
[7]
I find that the Plaintiffs’ attempt to seek
access to justice in this Court must be rejected because their Statements of
Claim have no reasonable prospect of success. As evidenced by the “Bill in
Equity”, the Plaintiffs have developed a belief unknown to the laws of Canada,
upon which their Statements of Claim are based.
[8]
No cause of action arises from a belief that, by
birth in Canada, a person acquires a proprietary interest in the resources of
the country, under the wrongful control of Her Majesty the Queen, that founds a
monetary claim which is calculable based on that person’s date of birth.
[9]
As a result, pursuant to Rule 221(1)(a) of the Rules,
I order that the Statements of Claim in each of the actions in the present
Consolidated Action, be struck out, without leave to amend.
IV.
Costs
[10]
As the successful party, I accept Counsel for
the Respondent’s request that costs of the present Motion be ordered to be paid
by the Plaintiffs jointly.
[11]
In preliminary written argument dated September
15, 2015, Counsel for the Respondent argued for an elevated cost award to
discourage “this type of abusive litigation and to indemnify the Defendant for
her legal costs”. Given that I have found that the Plaintiffs have brought the
present Consolidated Action on the basis of an honest belief, and similar
claims have not been determined by this Court, I have no reason to conclude
that the present litigation is an abuse of process.
[12]
However, I would caution that the present
minimal costs award is being made strictly on the basis of the present unique
circumstances.
APPENDIX
The essential claims in T-1287-15 are as follows:
1. The applicant comes before the court seeking the administration
of justice. […]
[…]
3. The
applicant further claims that the defendant, through an operation of law, inter
alia,
Section 93
of the Bank Act, S.C. 1991, c. 46, established Herself as Constructive
Registered
Holder of the applicant's security, and as
such assumed the right to be treated as "the person exclusively entitled
to vote, to receive notices, to receive any interest, dividend or other payment
in respect of the security and to exercise all of the rights and powers of an
owner of the security", even though the applicant is of full age of
majority and competent to operate upon his own security. Further, this all took
place without the applicant's knowledge or consent. [Subsection 3(b)(ii) of the
Crown Liability and Proceedings Act,
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-so]
4. The applicant informed the holder of the defendant's Executive
Powers, the Governor General, that the applicant no longer wishes to be
recognized and designated as a servant and subject of the defendant.
5. This was accomplished by sending a Notice of Understanding and
Claim of Recognition
("Notice'') to the defendant's representative in Canada, the
Governor General of
Canada. The Notice was dated March 25, 2015 and received by the
Governor General on
April 8, 2015. (Evidence available at trial)
6. In the "Notice", the applicant informed the executive
powers that the applicant no longer wishes to be recognized and designated as a
servant and subject of Her Majesty the Queen.
[…]
14. The applicant informed the Queen in council that he will only
stand under recognition and designation as a Human Being. That the applicant
has no obligation to seek to have a right conferred upon him by the defendant
through a license or permit. […]
[…]
20. The applicant is seeking to exercise, inter alia, his
fundamental right to an adequate living. The applicant claims that this right
to enjoy a living has been restricted, contrary to the principles of
fundamental justice.
21. Further, the defendant continues to operate upon the applicant's
security despite the fact that the applicant is of the age of majority and
competent to conduct his own financial and other affairs.
22. The applicant claims that the right to work in order to gain a
living was forced upon the applicant contrary to the principles of fundamental
justice. […]
[…]
24. The applicant is under no obligation to exercise the right to
work. In fact, the applicant claims that this right does not produce an
obligation in law, a right never produces an obligation but a choice. […]
25. The applicant claims that the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen,
as a state party member is under obligation, as a signatory to the
international covenants, to recognize the right to work.
26. There is a right to work that an individual can choose to
exercise. As with any right, it can be used or not. The right to work includes
(a cannon of construction holding that to express or include one thing, implies
the exclusion of the other, or of the alternative) the right of everyone to the
opportunity to gain his living by work . The right to work then, is for the
sole purpose of gaining the applicant's living. This right extends to everyone
(Human Being) to permit one the opportunity (choice or opportunity) to gain his
or her living by work.
[…]
28. The applicant claims that this right to work and earn, gain or
pursue a living is something that must freely be chosen or accepted. This is
the principle of fundamental justice concerning the right to work.
[…]
30. The applicant claims that in order to have and enjoy an adequate
standard of living, the applicant tried to exercise his fundamental right to an
adequate living and was denied by the defendant. […]
32. The applicant has invoked his right not to work, […]
33. The applicant has a right to gain his living by work which he
freely chooses or accepts to do. The applicant, however, has chosen not to gain
a living by choosing to work. Instead, the applicant has chosen to pursue
happiness in life. In pursuing happiness the applicant is not gaining his
living by work yet he remains with the right to enjoy an adequate standard of
living […]
34. The applicant claims that this right is being restricted by the
defendant contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.
35. Another right that is being restricted, contrary to the
principles of fundamental justice is the right of the applicant to contribute
(or not) to the economic, social and cultural development of the defendant.
[…]
38. In an exchange of labour for money, the applicant exchanges his
property (labour) for another property (money). This latter property belongs
solely to the applicant and when the Canada Revenue Agency, an agent of the
defendant, by threat of the use of violence, forces the applicant to contribute
a portion of his property to the defendant in the form of taxation in order to
finance the economic, social and cultural development of the defendant's
commercial enterprise called Canada, this constitutes a violation of the
applicant's rights and Canada's international obligations.
[…]
49. On May 15, 2015 the applicant sent a demand to the the [sic]
Receiver General for Canada, who is an agent of the defendant. This demand was
sent pursuant to the applicant's right to security of the person (Article 7 of
Schedule B, of the Constitution Act, 1982). (Evidence will be available at
trial)
[…]
51. The applicant claims that the Receiver General is an agent of
the defendant and this is the designation or the role of the Receiver General.
This office has been charged with the duties and responsibilities of collecting
debts and also paying off any obligation (debt) that the defendant or the
government of Canada may have.
52. A claim for settlement was sent to the Receiver General along
with all supporting evidence. But the defendant failed to discharge Her duty to
provide the applicant with an adequate standard of living and incidentally, the
applicant also demanded return of care and control over his security to him,
but again, the defendant failed to comply.
(Evidence will be available at trial)
[…]
57. The applicant claims there has been a security issued to him
when he was a child, shortly after his birth, and this security represents the
obligation (debt) that the defendant and her agents are under to allow the
applicant, a Human Being, to be secure from fear and want and to allow him to
enjoy an adequate standard of living.
[…]
59. The applicant claims that the defendant, in right of Canada,
through her executive powers became a signatory to the international Covenants,
and thereby became obligated and accountable to respect and ensure all the
fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the covenants. […]
[…]
62. The applicant claims that a security is in registered form if it
bears a statement upon it that it is in registered form. If one looks upon the
documentation given or received from the government (Registrar General) after
the applicant (Human Being) was born, it is designated a registration of live
birth (a.k.a., birth registration document). Written upon this instrument are
terms such as Registration number, Registration date, etc., all indications
that the instrument is registered, meaning it is in registered form. […]
63. The applicant claims that the office of the Registrar General
from whom he obtained a certified copy of the birth registration document
(security), is also an agent of the defendant and operating on Her behalf.
[…]
65. The applicant claims his security is proof of the debt
obligation that the defendant owes to the applicant.
66. This obligation, inter alia, is to ensure the applicant (Human
Being) enjoys an adequate standard of living including food, clothing and
housing and to the continued improvement of those living conditions […]
67. This security is issued to the natural person (i.e. The Human
Being) and creates or represents the obligation (debt) owing to the applicant
by the defendant.
[…]
72. The applicant claims that the registration of live birth is an
instrument that proves the birth of a child (human being). The applicant
accepts that a child in law, an infant, is a minor and not capable of handling
its own financial and other affairs and must be looked after (governed by a
trustee).
73. The applicant respectfully submits that it is, inter alia, the
Bank Act that creates a Trust because the bank may treat a person as a
registered security holder who is entitled to exercise all the rights of the
security holder if this person presents to the bank a certain piece of
evidence.
[…]
75. The applicant claims that the defendant (Queen in Council) is
declaring that the applicant is indeed a minor and unable to operate the
entitlements to the security of the person.
The Ministers, agents of the defendant, are the persons who are
currently exercising the rights to the applicant's security.
[…]
78. The applicant claims that a trustee is treated as the owner of
the security, the trustee declares that the applicant is a minor and then
exercises the rights to his security.
79. The bank treats the trustee (the
defendant's agent(s)) "as the person exclusively entitled to vote, to
receive notices, to receive any interest, dividend or other payment in respect
of the security and to exercise all of the rights and powers of an owner of the
security", even though they are not the owner of the security, the
applicant is the "registered security holder" of his security.
80. The applicant further claims that he has severed the
Constructive Registered Holder's claimed rights over his security via the
Notice of Understanding and Claim of Recognition sent to the holder of the
defendant's Executive powers, the Governor General on March 31, 2015 and
received by him on April 8, 2015.
81. The applicant claims that the Receiver General failed to allow
the applicant to operate upon his security by refusing to comply with the
applicant's Instruction for Payment.
82. The applicant sent a request for funds to be released in
accordance with his instructions,
solely for the purpose of fulfilling his right to an adequate
standard of living, even though, since the money conies from the applicant's
security (from the Consolidated Revenue Fund), the defendant's agents have
absolutely no right to operate upon his security any longer which means the
request for funds did not even have to be justified in anyway.
[…]
84. The Receiver General did not fulfill its obligations as indicated
in this claim. In fact, the Receiver General did not even respond to the
applicant.
[…]
88. The applicant claims that the Receiver General is subject to the
Constitution Act of Canada and has not fulfilled his duty by reconciling the
applicant's claims and releasing the funds as instructed.
[…]
91. The applicant claims that by not making reconciliation of the
applicant's claim for an adequate standard of living and releasing the funds,
control of his security and his patrimony, the defendant through her agent, the
Receiver General, is exercising arbitrary powers in trying to deny, inter alia,
the applicant's fundamental right to security of the person.
92. The applicant claims that the defendant and Canada have the
obligation to protect and
uphold the right(s) that the applicant is seeking to enforce through
this court action.
[…]
98. Finally, the Statement of Live Birth is a security, based upon
the definition of security contained in the Bank Act.
99. The applicant's security is evidence of a debt owing to the
security holder, in this case, the applicant.
100. A debt can be in the nature of a commitment to recognize,
protect and uphold ones human rights or the value of an Estate, in this case
the applicant's Patrimony, which forms part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
101. Under the authority of the Bank Act, inter alia, the agent(s)
of the defendant made themselves the Trustee (Constructive Registered Holder)
of the applicant's security and are, as
a result, operating upon this security and "entitled
to vote, to receive notices, to receive any interest, dividend or other payment
in respect of the security", as an operation of law.
102. That security belongs to, and is the property of, the applicant
and-care and control of that security must be returned to the applicant upon
request, AND HE DOES SO REQUEST.
Relief Sought:
The applicant therefore claims as follows:
a) An Order that the defendant honour Her obligations to the
applicant, inter alia, as outlined in Article 7 of Schedule B of the
Constitution Act, 1982.
b) An Order that the defendant arrange for the return of care and
control of the applicant's security to him and it is the applicant, not the
Constructive Registered Holder, who is "entitled
to vote, to receive notices, to receive any interest, dividend or other payment
in respect of tile security". […]
c) An Order that the defendant arrange for the transfer of care and
control over the applicant's Patrimony, the remaining portion of the
Consolidated Revenue Fund that represents the "interest,
dividend or other payment in respect of the (applicant's) security".
d) An Order that the defendant pay damages to the applicant in the
amount of $50,000,000.00.
e) An Order that the defendant pay the applicant $50,000,000.00 in
punitive damages.
f) An Order to cease and desist hindering the applicant in his
expression and operation of his individual rights and fundamental freedoms by
allowing the applicant to use Promissory Notes without the interference of any
representative of the defendant's Bank OR the defendant.
g) An order that the defendant safeguard the applicant's rights,
inter alia, as expressed in Article 7 of the Charter, "Everyone
has the right to life, liberty and security of the person”. The
applicant a Human Being, has the right to the security of his person and no one
can deprive him of this right.
Email this Content