Court File and Parties

Oshawa Court File No.: CR-21-15504 Date: 2021-02-08 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: R. v. Paul Michael Kuleba

Before: The Honourable Madam Justice J. Speyer

Counsel: Paul Murray, for the Crown Unrepresented, for Paul Michael Kuleba

Heard: January 27, 2021, via teleconference

Endorsement

[1] The applicant brought this application for habeas corpus to secure his immediate release from custody. On the date of the hearing of this application, he was in custody at the Central East Correctional Centre (“CECC”), following his arrest after he failed to attend a court appearance in the Ontario Court of Justice via audioconference in relation to outstanding charges. The applicant argued that his arrest which resulted in his detention in the CECC was unlawful and that therefore his detention was unlawful.

[2] It was the position of the applicant that he was not required to attend his court appearance in the Ontario Court of Justice by audioconference because he did not consent to that method of appearance, and no one has authority over him unless he consents. His position was based on a distinction he attempted to make between himself, “i:living man:Paul of the Kuleba family”, who is “a living man” who is free to ignore the legal obligations of persons with matters pending before the court unless he consents to perform those obligations, and “Paul A. Kuleba”, a “legal entity” that was the subject of the arrest warrant. At the end of the hearing, I concluded that the application was without merit, and dismissed the application, with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

[3] This hearing proceeded by audioconference with the consent of the applicant. Although s. 774.1 of the Criminal Code states: “Despite any other provision of this Act, the person who is the subject of a writ of habeas corpus must appear personally in court”, the applicant was not, at the time of the hearing, the subject of a writ of habeas corpus. The Habeas Corpus Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-1 provides:

1 (1) Where a person, other than a person imprisoned for debt, or by process in any action, or by the judgment, conviction or order of the Superior Court of Justice or other court of record is confined or restrained of his or her liberty, a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, upon complaint made by or on behalf of the person so confined or restrained, if it appears by affidavit that there is reasonable and probable ground for the complaint, shall award a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum directed to the person in whose custody or power the person so confined or restrained is, returnable immediately before the judge so awarding the writ, or before any judge of the Superior Court of Justice. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.1, s. 1 (1); 2006, c. 19, Sched. C, s. 1 (1). [Emphasis added.]

[4] It is only when such reasonable and probable grounds exist that the writ is issued, compelling the person having custody of an individual to bring him before the court so that a hearing may occur in which the custodian must demonstrate that the detention is lawful.

[5] The applicant’s affidavit provided no reasonable and probable grounds for his complaint that he was unlawfully detained. However, given that he was self-represented and in custody, and thus disadvantaged in his ability to file materials with the court, I permitted him to provide viva voce evidence under affirmation to supplement his affidavit so as to permit him a full opportunity to describe the circumstances that he alleged resulted in his unlawful detention. Crown counsel filed as exhibits on the hearing the documents that purported to authorize the applicant’s detention in custody, as well as emails referred to by the applicant in his evidence, so that I was provided with the requisite record on which to assess the application.

[6] By way of background, the applicant was arrested on June 8, 2019 for various offences. His trial has not yet taken place. His obligation to appear in court, and the manner in which he is to appear in the Ontario Court of Justice while measures are in place to protect public safety during the COVID-19 pandemic, is governed by a Notice to the Profession and the Public: Criminal Case Management Appearances on or after November 30, 2020 (Published November 18, 2020) issued by the Ontario Court of Justice. As of Monday, November 30, 2020, accused persons have been required to attend for their scheduled appearances in the Ontario Court of Justice in criminal case management court – either by having counsel appear on their behalf or by appearing virtually by telephone or video on specified dates. A court may order this manner of appearance for case management appearances pursuant to s. 715.23 of the Criminal Code.

[7] The applicant was required to attend court via audioconference on December 18, 2020. The applicant was aware of his requirement to call in to the court on December 18, 2020, because he was so advised by an Assistant Crown Attorney by email dated December 10, 2020. The applicant responded to that email stating “My name is not Mr. Kuleba”. On December 18, 2020, his matter was adjourned to January 4, 2021, to be addressed by means of an audioconference. A bench warrant with discretion was issued to maintain jurisdiction until January 4, 2021.

[8] There is no doubt that the applicant was aware that his attendance in court by audioconference was required on January 4, 2021. He was so advised by an Assistant Crown Attorney by email dated December 18, 2020, after he failed to call in for his scheduled appearance by audioconference on December 18. The applicant responded to that December 18, 2020 email by stating: “Your ignorance of the law is baffling. Your threats to acquire a warrant for my arrest are unlawful and therefore criminal. Do not contact me again.” [Emphasis in original.] The applicant failed to call in for his January 4, 2021, and on that date Burstein J. issued a warrant for his arrest. The applicant was arrested on the authority of that bench warrant on January 8, 2021.

[9] The applicant remained in custody after January 8, 2021 until the date of the hearing of his habeas corpus application on January 27, 2021. He twice refused to appear before a bail court by videoconference to have a bail hearing. The Crown Attorney advises that the Crown would have consented to the applicant’s release from custody on the same terms that governed his release before his January 8, 2021 arrest. The applicant testified that he declined to participate in the bail court appearances because the bail court did not pertain to him because the proceedings were not in his name.

[10] There is no merit to the applicant’s argument that the warrant issued for his arrest following his deliberate non-appearance by audioconference on January 4, 2021 was issued without lawful authority. There is also no merit to his argument that the arrest itself was unlawful. The applicant’s position is similar to that taken by numerous other litigants in a variety of legal circumstances in aid of their efforts to evade or abuse the jurisdiction of the courts. The argument advanced by these litigants is often referred to as an “Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument” and was thoroughly debunked by Alberta Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. The applicant’s approach bears many of the OPCA hallmarks and characteristics. His self-identification as “i:living man:Paul of the Kuleba family” in aid of his attempt to distinguish between artificial persons (the entity that is the subject of the pending charges) and natural or living persons (him) is one such hallmark.

[11] His misguided argument has caused him to seek a remedy, habeas corpus, without a valid legal foundation. There are no reasonable and probable grounds for his complaint that he has been unlawfully arrested and/or detained. The grounds he advanced reflect an approach to litigation that has been repeatedly and resoundingly rejected in more than 250 judicial decisions that have considered Meads v. Meads. See, for example: R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160, at para. 22 (“such arguments are a waste of the court’s time and resources, a selfish and/or unthinking act of disrespect to other litigants and deserving of no further attention, energy or comment”); R. v. Cassista, 2013 ONCJ 305, at para. 9 (“The theme and many of its iterations have been identified in Meads and thoroughly rebuked as nonsense.”); Dennett v. Gilbert, 2020 ONSC 6865 (“vexatious nonsense that is designed to tie up the courts”); and, R. v. Ciciarelli, 2019 ONSC 6719, at para. 4 (“The arguments advanced by the appellant are not new. They have been advanced many times in various forms, never with success.”).

[12] Sadly, the applicant’s stubbornly wrong reliance on the arguments he advanced caused him to reject opportunities provided to him, as are provided to all arrestees, to have his right to not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause determined by a bail court. I wish to be clear with the applicant so that perhaps he will choose not to advance debunked notions that so obviously work to his detriment. The laws of Ontario and Canada apply to him no matter how he chooses to spell his name or what words he uses to describe himself. The criminal law, and the procedures that govern its implementation, are part of the law of Ontario and Canada and apply to all. Opting out is not an option.

[13] Because the applicant advanced no reasonable and probable ground to challenge the basis for his detention in custody, his application for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the person in whose custody or power he was confined is dismissed.

Justice J. Speyer Date: February 8, 2021