Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-547218 DATE: 20160707 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: NOBLE VICTOR JARVIS EI, Plaintiff -and- DAVID M.W. MORLOG, Defendant

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

READ: July 7, 2016

Endorsement

[1] By endorsement dated March 15, 2016, reported at 2016 ONSC 1827, I stayed this action and directed the registrar to send a notice in Form 2.1A to the plaintiff to advise him that the court was considering dismissing this action for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process on its face. The plaintiff has not delivered any written submissions in response to the notice.

[2] The statement of claim makes no mention at all of the defendant. Rather, it contains a number of familiar elements indicative of OPCA claims as discussed by Rooke ACJ in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. OPCA claims are an abuse of process and therefore this action is dismissed. Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497, at para. 16.

Some courts take pains to write lengthy, learned reasons to show OPCA plaintiffs how each element of their pleading is abusive. I respectfully take a different view. In my view, plaintiffs who file OPCA claims are playing a game that is designed to frustrate the system and inflict unrecoverable expense and needless stress on the defendants. OPCA claims have been derided as abusive over and over again in courts across the country. I do not believe for a minute that OPCA plaintiffs believe that they can separate their legal personalities by putting their names in capital letters or calling themselves “Noble” or otherwise. They know that they cannot avoid the law or government jurisdiction by claiming to be a free man who has no contract with the government. They don’t refuse to accept the free services of the police, ambulance attendants, firefighters, doctors, nurses, and other publicly funded service providers who approach them in their normal names in the absence of a contract. Nor do I accept that these plaintiffs believe in good faith that they can avoid their just debts by creating unilateral fee schedules and using legal words jumbled into sentences that have no English meaning. In my view, even if some OPCA plaintiffs are being conned by “gurus,” they still know that at bottom they have no legal defence to the debts or claims asserted against them and they only go to the gurus to avoid their legal obligations, at best, or to lash out in bad faith at the system and their creditors at worst. It plays right into OPCA plaintiffs’ ill motives to treat their claims with respect and spend hour upon hour of judicial time writing lengthy, reasoned responses to the gibberish that they spew.

[3] All litigants are entitled to treated with respect and with simple human decency before the court. The OPCA positions that they adopt are not. In my view, it is more respectful to OPCA plaintiffs to truthfully tell them that they are engaged in a despicable enterprise that cannot be tolerated than to pretend that there is some merit which deserves academic debate and response. In my view, precious judicial time should be spent on resolving real matters. Simply taking judicial time to respond seriously to OPCA claims gives the claimants a measure of success in advancing their improper purposes. Associate Chief Justice Rooke spent more than enough of his very valuable time creating a textbook of abusive OPCA practices in Meads v. Meads. In my view, not another moment of judicial resources or party expense should be invested on OPCA claims. They should be summarily nipped in the bud with reference to Meads v. Meads and no more as set out in para. 2 above.

[4] The defendants may deliver a costs outline and no more than two pages of submissions on costs (including both the level and the quantum of costs sought) by July 22, 2016. The plaintiff may respond with up to two pages of written submissions by August 5, 2016. Costs submissions should be delivered to my attention to Judges’ Administration, Room 170, at the courthouse at 361 University Avenue, Toronto.

[5] The registrar is to deliver a copy of this endorsement on the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants by email if it has their email addresses. The registrar shall also serve a copy of the formal order dismissing the proceeding on the plaintiff as required by rule 2.1.01(4). The court dispenses with any requirement for the plaintiff’s approval of the form or content of the formal order.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: July 7, 2016