I was recently drawn back to the discussion of the phenomenon identified by Associate Chief Justice Rooke of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench as "Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument" (OPCA) litigants. This happy return was precipitated by the proliferation through social media of an Ontario case, R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160. This case is a fantastic read, not only for its reference to monkeys on typewriters and the general unreliability of the internet, but also for its interesting legal analysis of Ontario motor vehicle legislation. More importantly, it brings into perspective the importance of Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 as what might be described as an omnibus work of Canadian jurisprudence on the subject of OPCA litigants.
In his expansive decision in Meads, Rooke ACJ addressed a broad range of issues that can be raised by OPCA litigants. That case arose from a divorce action, wherein the Defendant Dennis Larry Meads advanced any number of vexatious and hopeless arguments on the basis of fictitious legal principles learned on the internet, among other places. These principles are expounded by "gurus" who teach these arguments to credulous laymen. The Court responded directly to these OPCA gurus, stating:
In his poem Inferno at Cantos 26-30, Dante placed the "evil counsellors" – those who used their position to advise others to engage in fraud, and "the falsifiers" – alchemists, counterfeiters, perjurers, and imposters, into the inner canyons of the eighth circle of hell. As sinners, the evil counsellors and falsifiers were matched by those who induce religious schisms, and surpassed only in fault by oath-breakers.
Persons who purposefully promote and teach proven ineffective techniques that purport to defeat valid state and court authority, and circumvent social obligations, appear to fall into those two categories. That they do so, and for profit at the expense of naive and vulnerable customers, is worse.
Associate Chief Justice Rooke systematically dealt with the arguments favoured by OPCA litigants, with the express purpose of saving the time of courts that would deal with these types of cases in the future. The value of this contribution cannot be overstated. As identified in Meads, OPCA litigants are ubiquitous throughout Canadian jurisdictions. Already, the salutary effects of Rooke ACJ's judgment can be observed, as these examples of subsequent case law demonstrate:
A person accused of resisting arrest argued that he was not subject to the Court's jurisdiction, and then proceeded to distinguish between himself and his "administrator". With numerous comments about the "patent rubbish on the internet", Mr. Justice O'Donnell concluded that the chain of events leading to the arrest was flawed, and thus the arrest itself was invalid and any resistance to that arrest was not an offence. On the basis of Meads, the accused's vexatious arguments were dismissed in a summary manner.
The Law Society of British Columbia v. Goodwin, 2013 BCSC 537
A self-styled "law-speaker" in the area of Duncan, BC, Mr. Goodwin had represented a number of accused persons in a vexatious manner. Mr. Justice Greyell relied on Meads to find that an attack against a Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction constituted vexatious behaviour.
Cassa v. The Queen, 2013 TCC 43
On a motion to strike a further amended notice of appeal, Madame Justice Campbell of the Tax Court of Canada relied on Meads to identify the Appellant as an OPCA litigant. The Appellant called the Meads decision "prejudicial", clearly hoping that the Court would ignore it. Campbell J., of course, did the opposite and found that the further amended notice of appeal was an abuse of the Court's process, and had it struck.
At the time of writing, there are six further reported decisions citing Meads, and there is no doubt that many more will follow. Hopefully the spread of this decision will influence potential OPCA litigants away from future attempts to make these hopeless arguments. In the event that it is not successful, Meads will remain as the cornerstone judgment by which such arguments can be thwarted with a minimum of effort.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
