Court File and Parties

Citation: Ellis v. Wernick et al. 2017 ONSC 5237 Court File No.: CV-17-578949 Date: 2017-09-05 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Between: Patrick Ellis, Applicant

• and - Michael Wernick, Kathleen Wynne, John Tory and Mark Saunders, Respondents

Before: J.F. Diamond J. Read: September 1, 2017

Endorsement

[1] This application was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written request under Rule 2.1.01(6) submitted by the respondents John Tory and Mark Saunders.

[2] In accordance with my Endorsement dated August 10, 2017, this proceeding was stayed pending the receipt of a written response from the applicant to address the Court contemplating the dismissal of this proceeding.

[3] I have now received and reviewed the applicant’s written submissions.

[4] To begin, in his submissions the applicant does not address the concerns raised in my said Endorsement relating to his apparent breach of Rule 14.05(3)(g), and in particular the applicant commencing the within application to seek only injunctive relief. As I previously stated, Rule 14.05(3)(g) clearly states that injunctive relief may only be sought by way of application when that injunctive relief is ancillary to relief claimed in a proceeding properly commenced by way of notice of application.

[5] Instead, the applicant’s submissions focused upon the respondents’ alleged treatment of the applicant as a “common Canadian” as the respondents lacked jurisdiction over the applicant as a member of the Saulteaux Tribe of the Anshihaabeg Nations of Turtle Island. The applicant argues that as the “Chief of the Tribe of Judah”, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary (i.e. Queen Elizabeth II) does not have jurisdiction over Turtle Island which land “belongs to Yahuah not to be sold forever.”

[6] Throughout the balance of the 36 paragraphs in his written submissions, the applicant argues historically that the Privy Council Office England, the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Privy Council Office Dominion of Canada were all “invented” to perpetrate a fraud aimed at the genocide of the Anshihaabeg. The applicant further argues that the British North America Act, 1867 is a “weapon of law” which was passed as part of a scheme to steal the Anshihaabeg land, and as a result the Ontario Superior Court of the Justice (“the Court”) lacks jurisdiction over the respondents to deny the application.

[7] It is interesting that by commencing his application, the applicant originally sought to invoke and avail himself of the jurisdiction and remedies of this Court, but now strenuously argues that he is not (and has never been) subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. The applicant himself hints at these two ironic positions by suggesting that this Court could make a “mere recommendation” to the respondents that they refrain from molesting him.

[8] In addition to my reliance upon the comments of A.C.J.S.C. Marrocco in his decision Ellis v. Wernick 2017 ONSC 1461 (set out in paragraph 5 of my previous Endorsement), I am also relying upon the decision of Justice Myers in Jarvis v Morlog 2016 ONSC 4476. In my view, the applicant’s submissions are akin to those of litigants seeking to shield themselves as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants (“OPCA litigants”, as that terms was defined by A.C.J. Rooke in Meads v. Meads 2012 ABQB 571). In Jarvis, Justice Myers held:

“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.

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.”

[9] I find it is apparent on the face of the notice of application in light of the material in the Court’s file that the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. This proceeding is therefore dismissed without costs.

[10] The court dispenses with any requirement for the applicant to approve the form or content of the formal order dismissing the application without costs.

[11] In addition to the service by mail required by Rule 2.1.01(4), the registrar is to send a copy of this Endorsement to the applicant and counsel for the respondents by email if their email addresses are known or have been provided.

Diamond J.

Released: September 5, 2017