Royal Bank of Canada v. Albert Peter James Francoeur, 2023 ONSC 1579

COURT FILE NOS.: CV-22-0393-00; CV-22-0394-00; CV-22-0395-00; CV-22-0396-00 DATE: 2023-03-08

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Royal Bank of Canada Plaintiff Defendant to the Counterclaim

• and -

Albert Peter James Francoeur Defendant Plaintiff by Counterclaim

COUNSEL: G. Kukla for the Plaintiff “Albert” for the Defendant, Albert Peter James Francoeur

HEARD: February 16, 2023, at Thunder Bay, Ontario

BEFORE: Mr. Justice W. D. Newton

Reasons On Motion

Overview

[1] In these four actions, the Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) moves for summary judgment for amounts owing on various mortgages, charges, lines of credit and a credit card. The amounts claimed total approximately $632,000. RBC also seeks leave to issue writs of possession against certain properties in Thunder Bay. RBC also seeks the dismissal of the counterclaims brought by the defendant [^1] in all four actions.

[2] The defendant advised that he appears as “CEO” of Freedom Trust RN 623 018 037 CA. In his statement of defence and counterclaim he states that “Freedom Trust RN 623 018 037 CA has the highest security lien interest in the defendant estate/trust” and that “the title of legal owner has been transferred to the department of finance Canada/deputy prime minister/minister of finance Canada Chrystia Freeland.” The defendant relies upon many equitable maxims and seeks orders for an injunction, the appointment of a receiver and manager, appointment of new trustees, appointment of a personal representative, and orders “declaratory of the rights of the parties”.

[3] RBC argues that the defendant has not advanced any evidence or argument to dispute RBC’s entitlement to summary judgment or support the defendant’s counterclaim. Counsel for RBC describe the defendant’s arguments as having many of the hallmarks of an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (“OPCA”) litigant as described in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 [^2].

[4] I agree. The arguments advanced in defence of the summary judgment motions and in support of the statement of defence and counterclaim are without merit. Judgment will issue in each action as hereinafter described.

The Background

[5] RBC advanced money to the defendant pursuant to mortgages and charges entered into with the defendant between 2012 and 2019. In 2022, the defendant started to default in his payment obligations.

[6] In an affidavit sworn February 10, 2023, after describing himself as Albert-Peter-James, the defendant deposes that he sent a notice to RBC in April 2022 stating that he would “no longer be volunteering to act in person as an officer or agent of the Crown”. He also deposed that in May 2022 he accepted “the security certificate (birth certificate) as grantee and then specifically endorsed it and deposited to the Department of Finance Canada perfecting the title and interest.” Following that statement, the defendant reproduced eight pages of sections of various statutes. He also deposed that he registered a lien against Albert Peter James Francoeur and invokes various equitable doctrines.

[7] The forms and tactics adopted by the defendant are as described in Meads: the name motifs [^3]; the document formalities and markings such as the statements “accepted for value”, “exempt from levy” [^4]; the creation of liens between two aspects of himself [^5]; and the “intra-personal” contractual and trust relationships. [^6]

[8] I am satisfied that the defendant is an OPCA litigant. There is no merit to any argument raised by the defendant. RBC shall have judgement as outlined below.

[9] Unfortunately, these type of OPCA litigants still tie up our courts [^7] and often result in stays under r. 2.1.01. The courts and legitimate litigants should be hypervigilant for OPCA litigants and take steps to weed out these types of proceedings at the earliest opportunity so that scarce judicial resources are not wasted on cases such as these.

Judgements to Issue

[10] In action CV-22-00000393-000 RBC shall have judgement in accordance with the draft judgement as set out at CaseLines page A336 with costs fixed in the amount of $9,487.31 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

[11] In action CV-22-00000394-000 RBC shall have judgement in accordance with the draft judgement as set out at CaseLines page A466 with costs fixed in the amount of $10,078.40 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

[12] In action CV-22-00000395-000 RBC shall have judgement in accordance with the draft judgement as set out at CaseLines page A609 with costs fixed in the amount of $9,268.68 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

[13] In action CV-22-00000396-000 RBC shall have judgement in accordance with the draft judgement as set out at CaseLines page A864 with costs fixed in the amount of $5,341.45 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

[14] Since the defendant is an OPCA litigant, the requirement that the defendant approve the judgements prior to issuance is dispensed with.

“Original signed by” The Hon. Mr. Justice W.D. Newton

Released: March 8, 2023

Footnotes

[^1]: Albert Peter James Francoeur advised the court at the outset of the motion that he should be referred to as “Albert” because there are no surnames in the Kingdom of God. I will refer to him as the defendant in these reasons. [^2]: Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (“Meads”). [^3]: Meads at para. 206. [^4]: Meads at para. 218 and 230. [^5]: Meads at para. 431. [^6]: Meads at para 432. [^7]: See for example: Woodley v. Cipolla, 2022 ONSC 7096; Mukwas v. Farm Credit Canada, 2021 ONSC 1632; and Kisac v. Defence Construction Canada, 2022 ONSC 3986.