L. Geddes

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss a civil action arising from a brief consensual dating relationship between two adults.

The plaintiff alleged emotional harm and sought damages following the breakdown of the relationship, asserting an unspecified “intentional tort” and claiming the defendant had used her and caused serious distress.

The court held that the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d) because the litigation was primarily motivated by a desire for punishment, revenge, and harassment rather than legitimate legal relief.

The court further held that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action under Rule 21.01(1)(b), rejecting attempts to frame the facts as intentional infliction of mental suffering or negligence arising from a failed intimate relationship.

The action was dismissed.

The defendant police officer brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim arising from a traffic stop.

The self-represented plaintiff alleged that statutory laws such as the Highway Traffic Act did not apply to him because he had not sworn allegiance to the Crown and claimed to be a “human being” rather than a legal person.

The court found the arguments resembled organized pseudolegal commercial argument (OPCA) concepts, including claims of immunity from statute and dual-persona theories.

Relying on authorities including Meads v. Meads and R. v. Klundert, the court held individuals cannot choose whether statutory law applies to them and that such arguments are legally baseless.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action.