OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-15504
DATE: 20210401
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: R. v. Paul Michael Kuleba
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice H. Leibovich
COUNSEL: Paul Murray, for the Crown paul.t.murray@ontario.ca
Unrepresented, for Paul Michael Kuleba pkuleba@hotmail.com
HEARD: March 31, 2021
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The applicant has brought an application for habeus corpus. He claims that his arrest for failing to appear and subsequent detention was unlawful. More broadly, he rejects the name of Paul Kuleba and wants to be referred to as Paul, the Settler and he rejects this court as having any jurisdiction over him. The applicant brought a very similar application before Justice Speyer when he was arrested for an earlier fail to appear charge. Justice Speyer dismissed that application in R. v. Kuleba, 2021 ONSC 1016. At the conclusion of this hearing, I dismissed the application with reasons to follow. Here are those reasons.
[2] Briefly by way of background, the applicant was arrested on June 8, 2019 for various offences. He was required to attend court via audioconference on December 18, 2020. He did not. The matter was adjourned to January 4, 2021. The applicant did not call in on January 4th and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was arrested on January 8, 2021 for failing to appear. He brought a habeus corpus application before Justice Speyer. She dismissed the application and provided written reasons on February 8, 2021. The applicant was then released on bail. He failed to attend on February 23, 2021. The matter was put over to March 8th and he again failed to appear. He was arrested on March 18, 2021. On March 20, 2021, Justice of the Peace Coopersmith ordered that that the applicant be released with a residential surety, but his proposed surety was not approved. He has thus brought this habeus corpus application. He states in his notice that:
The applicant has been detained and confined into custody and deprived of his liberty. He is seeking to be returned before a judge to be awarded the writ.
On March 18th, 2021, the applicant was arrested and charged with failing to appear before the court.
The applicant was unlawfully arrested and detained and he continues to remain in detention in direct violation of sections 7 and 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[3] The applicant has failed to provide any basis for his assertion that he was wrongfully arrested and detained. He has filed an affidavit, but it does not speak to the circumstances leading to his arrest and detention. Rather, the affidavit challenges the court’s jurisdiction over him, a living man. I do not accept the applicant’s assertions about this court’s jurisdiction. They have been rejected on numerous occasions and they are a waste of the court’s time. In my view, Justice Speyer’s comments in the applicant’s first habeus corpus application at paras. 11 to 13 are appropriate:
His misguided argument has caused him to seek a remedy, habeus 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.”).
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.
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.
[4] Furthermore, the applicant has not exhausted his legal avenues. He has not a sought a bail review to challenge Justice of the Peace Coopersmith’s March 20, 2021 decision. He can seek, on review, to be released on his own recognizance or to delete the need for a residential surety. He can also propose, without a review, a new surety.
[5] The application is dismissed.
Justice H. Leibovich
Date: April 1, 2021