Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Amir Sarac, Plaintiff
-and-
Wilstar Management Ltd., Ryan Gibson, and Debbie Dykstra, Defendants
BEFORE: FL Myers J
COUNSEL: None
READ: November 24, 2021
ENDORSEMENT
[1]
Overview
Under Rule 2.1.01 (7), the registrar referred the statement of claim to me as a co-Lead of the Civil Team in this region.
2This is one of the very few cases where a dismissal of the action is mandated under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure without first giving notice to the plaintiff and inviting him to file written submissions.
3Cases reviewed under Rule 2.1 often appear to be hopeless on the face of the statement for claim. Yet, in almost all cases, basic fairness requires that the plaintiff be told that there is a serious concern with the pleading so that she or he can try to explain to the court why the case should not be dismissed.
4However, in some cases, the claim is not just hopeless on its merits, but is wickedly abusive on its face. Giving notice in those cases can just allow the plaintiff to continue his abuse and utilize ever-more-scarce judicial resources.
5This is one such case. For the reasons that follow, this action is dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 (1) and I expressly order that the written hearing process set out in Rule 2.1.01 (3) is not applicable.
[6]
The Parties and the Litigation Scheme
Although only Mr. Sarac is named as plaintiff in the title of proceedings, the body of the statement of claim purports to advance claims on behalf of both Mr. Sarac and a person who refers to himself as “Grand Chief Wabiska Mukwa”.
7It appears from the statement of claim that Mr. Sarac is suing his former landlord, one of its employees, and an employee of the Sheriff’s office in Toronto, to contest an eviction order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board. The rest of the claim is the familiar claim that has been advanced by Grand Chief Mukwa and rejected by several judges of the court previously.
8Grand Chief Mukwa purports to represent two groups for hire who will advance claims in court phrased as assertions of Indigenous rights on behalf of clients like mortgage borrowers, tenants, or others who find themselves in legal troubles. Grand Chief Mukwa makes claims that North America (that he refers to as Turtle Island) is unceded land belonging to his “nations” and thereby denies the authority of the laws of Canada, any province, and the courts over him and his client.
9Justice Akbarali described Grand Chief Mukwa’s litigation scheme in Mukwa v. Farm Credit Canada, 2021 ONSC 1632:
17At the hearing, Chief Grand Wabiska Mukwa indicated that he, as Chief Justice of his Indigenous Nation, was participating in the hearing together with the plaintiffs whose rights he states are being attacked.
18The title of proceedings for the plaintiffs’ claim and amended claim state that the pleadings are issued in conjunction with “ASKIT” and “Kinakwii Indigenous Tribunal.”
19The evidence before me indicates that Chief Wabiska’s email address, which includes the phrase “askit4equity,” is linked to a website advertising the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation (“ASMIN”), which claims to be one of the oldest unsurrendered, untreatied matriarchal Indigenous Nations of Turtle Island. For $225, anyone can become a member of the ASMIN nation on filling out an application.
20The Kinakwii National website suggests that Kinakwii Nation was founded by William Allan of the Baldwin family and Jon of the Maskell family under certain notices which are in evidence before me. For $300 annually, anyone can become a member of the Kinakwii Nation on filling out an application.
21Neither the ASMIN nor the Kinakwii Nation are recognized as a First Nation on a comprehensive list of all First Nations across Canada that is compiled by Crown-Indigenous Relations, Northern Affairs Canada, and Indigenous Services Canada. [Emphasis added.]
10Justice Akbarali went through each of the arguments raised by Grand Chief Mukwa and dismissed them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (“OPCA”). The term OPCA describes a number of abusive litigation tactics discussed in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571.
11In National Bank of Canada v. Guibord, 2021 ONSC 6549, Mew J also dismissed summarily all of Grand Chief Mukwa’s claims.
[12]
The Statement of Claim
As in those prior cases, the statement of claim in this case asserts, among other things, that:
a. Mr. Sarac’s land is unceded or was never surrendered to Canada under the Royal Proclamation of 1763;
b. Mr. Sarac claims the land back for the unconquered Metis People;
c. The defendants’ trespass against the Mr. Sarac has been registered with the ASKIT and Kinakwii Indigenous Tribunal that has been recognized by the Ontario Court of Appeal;
d. Mr. Sarac and Grand Chief Mukwa make a land claim for jurisdiction over Eastern Canada and BC (with certain exceptions for recognized Indigenous lands);
e. Mr. Sarac and Grand Chief Mukwa claim $329 billion for non-payment of rent to the Clan Mothers of North Eastern Region of Turtle Island (Eastern Canada);
f. Mr. Sarac and Grand Chief Mukwa command consultation with the Crown;
g. Mr. Sarac and Grand Chief Mukwa command quo warranto requiring Parliament and Crown Agents to prove that Ottawa, or Toronto, or Cambridge are not on unceded land; that the BNA Act of 1867 received Royal Assent; that the BNA Act was passed by the British Parliament with a quorum; that the BNA Act was not repealed by the
Statute Law Revision Act of 1893; that Canada satisfied s. 59 Language contingency of the Canada Act of 1982; and provide any lawful treaty for lands known to the UN as Canada with Non Status Kinakwii Nation and Sovereign ASMIN.
13The statement of claim has a section labelled “Facts” that pleads:
WILSTAR MANAGMENT LTD. is a Corporation doing business in Ontario, which is only a corporation registered on the SEC in Washington D.C., that provides governmental services. The Ministry of the Attorney General is part of ONTARIO INC. which employs the Sheriff Ms. Dykstra. Ontario is a sub-corporation of Canada Inc, both of which are located on Un-Ceded Land, and are only in de facto control of Indigenous Resources.
Ryan Gibson is also employed by WILSTAR MANAGEMENT LTD.
Wabiska Mukwa is an Ansihinaabe man, who is the great, great (etc.) grandson of the French Explorer Jean Nicolet, who was the Interpreter for Champlain in the early 1600's, and who fathered the first Metis child near Lake Nipissing circa 1626-28.
Wabiska [Mukwa] is both the Grand Chief of ASMIN, and its Chief of Justice who supervises ASMIN's Indigenous Tribunal ASKIT and Kinakwii's KIT. His family extends through 7 Indigenous lineages, totaling over 6 million People, who have resided all over Eastern Canada, and B.C., for thousands of years, prior to the arrival of Jean Nicolet.
Wabiska [Mukwa]'s native heritage traces back thousands of years to Kanata, Bolivia, which is where 'Canada' got its name from.
Amir [Sarac] is an Anishinaabe man, who immigrated to Turtle Island, but who has Indigenous roots in Europe, and who was adopted into ASMIN.
Amir [Sarac] rented the property known as 50 Cordova Avenue, unit PH06, Toronto, Turtle Island from WILSTAR MANAGEMENT LTD., who has failed to produce any Treaty for the said property.
The Crown began to steal the Resources of Canada without any Treaty, and promised to place said profits from the Resources into an Indian Trust, which Indian Trust was merged into a Consolidated Fund in Ottawa via the Indian Act of 1951.
Canada Inc. was then registered on the SEC in Washington, D.C. in order to trade in Securities, aka the U.S. Bank Note debt system, which enables the Central Bank in New York to print currency in its computers, without any lawful basis, in order to control trade on Turtle Island by offering Landlords like WILSTAR MANAGEMENT both the means, and the mortgage to buy up Indigenous Land without Treaty or purchase from the Clan Mothers.
Both The Indian Act and The BNA Act of 1867 did not receive 3 Readings and do not have Royal Assent. The BNA Act of 1867 was repealed by the UK Statute Law Revision Act of 1893, and became a Nullity.
27 .Both The BNA Act of 1867 and The Canada Act of 1982 were passed only in the UK Parliament, and, according to British Imperial Policy (a.k.a. Aboriginal Common Law), have no Jurisdiction over Peoples who are Un-Conquered, like the Indigenous People living on Turtle Island (North and South American and The Caribbean).
- Amir [Sarac] was dragged into a foreign Tribunal, being The Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board, in violation of the British Imperial Policy (as cited by the SCC in R v Desautel), where Amir [Sarac] gave a "consent" that was not informed, and that was given without prior Consultation with the Crown. Amir [Sarac]'s Plea regarding his Standing on his own Land as an Indigenous Tenant, under Indigenous Laws, Customs and Traditions were ignored, even though Canada's Parliament had ratified UNDRIP.
[14]
Analysis
Recall that Mr. Sarac claims to have been a residential tenant. He has no claim to title to the land on which his rental unit was located. In addition, ASMIN and Kinakwii are not First Nations. They are groups that can be joined online by anyone for a few hundred dollars. Mr. Sarac pleads that his indigeneity traces from European roots – not from Canada’s Indigenous Peoples – and he was “adopted into ASMIN” i.e. he paid his $225 online fee.
15None of Mr. Sarac, Grand Chief Mukwa, or his two groups speak for the Metis People.
16If there is an ASKIT and Kinakwii Indigenous Tribunal, it is certainly not a domestic tribunal exercising a jurisdiction on behalf of a First Nation that has been recognized by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
17In her decision discussed above. Akbarali J. made it clear that a “challenge to Canadian sovereignty, validly enacted legislation, constitutional documents, and land surrenders” is not justiciable.
18As discussed by Mew J., there is a time and a place for Indigenous land claims. This is a residential landlord and tenant case in which Canada is not even a party. The Crown’s constitutional obligations to consult with Indigenous People have nothing to do with this matter, the plaintiffs, or their groups.
19In Farm Credit Canada v. 1047535 Ontario Limited et al., 2021 ONSC 2541, Sweeny J. (as he then was) dismissed many of the same claims under Rule 2.1 as follows:
28The pleading in this case is not a close call. It is plainly vexatious. Resorting to the attenuated process of rule 2.1 is appropriate.
29The words used in the pleading, the form of the pleading including appendices, are all consistent with the illegitimate litigation tactics commonly referred to as “organized pseudo-legal commercial arguments”, as described in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571.
31This pleading is a game designed to frustrate the system and inflict unrecoverable expense and needless stress on the plaintiff, Farm Credit Corporation. The nature of the counterclaim seeks to frustrate the system and inflict unrecoverable expense and needless stress on the defendants to the counterclaim and the individuals who are purported to be named in the amended statement of defence and counterclaim.
[20]
Conclusion
The civil justice system must protect itself from blatant abuses of its process to preserve its resources for the litigants who truly need them. Grand Chief Mukwa has had several opportunities to explain how his claims and processes are anything other than legal gibberish designed to frustrate our already over-burdened civil justice system.
21No private defendant has to be called into this court to prove that Canada and Ontario are sovereign and do not derive their plenary constitutional jurisdictions from the US Securities and Exchange Act. Neither does a tenant get to hold up his eviction by suing his landlord for $329 billion dollars allegedly owing by Canada to its Indigenous Peoples.
22If the plaintiff actually launched a proper and timely appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board’s ruling, he might find a statutory stay of the eviction more to his liking. Instead, whether by design or through clever marketing, the plaintiff has retained Grand Chief Mukwa as his “guru” (as described by Rooke ACJA in Meads) to bring these same claims that have been repeatedly dismissed summarily by this court.
23All that is happening is that, for money, Grand Chief Mukwa and his groups are trying to help the plaintiff fend off a residential eviction by tying up the courts in his OPCA claims.
24Grand Chief Mukwa’s claims have been held to be invalid legal non-sequitors numerous times by numerous judges. He knows they are not real claims that have any legal validity. There is nothing left to hear from him. In fact, devoting time to dealing seriously with OPCA claims that are knowingly frivolous and vexatious just plays into the hands of the gurus who gain status and profit from the court engaging in their games as if they assert justiciable legal questions.
25This country recognizes that real injustices have been inflicted upon its Indigenous communities including the Metis People. Litigants who try to avoid their financial responsibilities by wrapping themselves in the garb of Indigenous Peoples’ real victimhood and suffering to tie up the courts with illegitimate and abusive claims deserve not another moment of court time or attention.
FL Myers J
Date: November 25, 2021