Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00693602-000 DATE: 20230824
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: James Brajak, Applicant AND: Alexandra Schmidt, Tom Goddard, Heather L. Katarynych, Kathleen J. Caldwell, Violet Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice Papageorgiou
COUNSEL: James Brajak, Plaintiff in person Mihaela Ion, for the Respondents
READ: August 23, 2023
Endorsement
Overview
[1] The Respondents made a request of the registrar pursuant to r. 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (“the Rules”) for an Order that this proceeding be dismissed on the basis that, on its face, it is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.
[2] In this action the Applicant sues a number of Respondents seeking orders that: “any fee or payment of Canadian legal tender debt notes” or other fees imposed against him be waived; all persons who are involved in heinous crimes and abominations against him or his property are permanently enjoined; that a special in camera hearing be scheduled to address these issues; and other relief related to the process for adjudicating his claim. He claims that he is not subject to any Acts of parliament or any other laws.
[3] On August 8, 2023 I directed the registrar to give notice to the Applicant in Form 2.1A that the court is considering making an order under r. 2.1.01(2).
[4] The Applicant provided written submissions in response to this request on or about August 10, 2023.
Decision
[5] For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that this case should be dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1.01.
The issue
[6] The only issue is whether this Application is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process on its face.
Analysis
[7] Rule 2.1.01(1) provides as follows:
The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
[8] As set out in Myers, J.’s decision in Gao v. Ontario WSIB and Ontario Ombudsman, 2014 ONSC 6100, 37 C.L.R. (4th) 1, at para. 9, r. 2.1.01(1) “is not meant for close calls” and decisions pursuant to this rule must be based upon whether the Application, on its face is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.
[9] The Application here contains hallmarks of a vexatious proceeding as follows:
It contains “rambling discourse”: Gao v. Ontario WSIB, 2014 ONSC 6497 (Gao, additional reasons), at para 15. For example, paragraph 2 contains two paragraphs which are each approximately 208 words long. The first paragraph reads as follows:
“According to the authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible, the living man created by God subject to this application is freely given dominion over all the earth and sea and creatures thereof, is the heir of God through faith of Jesus Christ, is forgiven of all his sins and trespasses by the blood of Jesus Christ, is under grace and not under law, dead to the law through the baptism of John given by God, is free and set at liberty, is charged to go throughout all the earth and preach the Gospel to every living creature, is of the Holy Ekklesia of God and not of the world, is not under bondage or to be conformed to the rudiments of this world, is prince of the kings of the earth in Christ Jesus, including the eight beast king, is judged by no man or woman, cannot serve mammon (commerce) shall be judged by God with equity, is not to be vexed or oppressed as a stranger and pilgrim in the earth, is a priest after the order of Melchisedek in Christ Jesus and not after Aaron and the Levitical priesthood, is not subject of any secular democracy of the world and is commanded to come out of her and render unto her double. Yet, as the corporate body of the legal beast flourishes upon the earth and de jur crown fail, the agents of entities; idolaters of idols, mount up to suffer all to be subject to legal imposition and voluntary slavery who are of a reprobate mind, and to mark them as beasts like themselves, who would not receive the love, grace, Word and Gospel of God.
He quotes the following which he says is from a 1795 decision of the US Supreme Court with the citation S.C.R. 1795, 3 U.S. 54, 1 L. Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54: “Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.”
I have reviewed the decision cited and it does not contain the statement set out above.
It is difficult to understand what the Application is about but the Applicant appears to have sued government employees and appears to be seeking orders that any government action against him be prohibited. At the end of the Application he requests the following relief:
“1st, so as not to bring dishonour upon the Court or Honourable Chancellor, that any fee or payment of Canadian legal tender debt notes/foreign counterfeit currency imposed or required for the doing of what is just fair and right be waived.
2nd, that permanent injunction is issued to stop all de facto persons in their actions involved in the heinous crimes and abominations committed and perpetrated against the complainant past and present, and to have his private property made void from their systems.”
The nature of this Application is similar to claims brought by “Freemen-on-the-Land” who “employ a collection of techniques…to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments.” These types of claims have been held to be vexatious: Bosse v Farm Credit Canada, [2013] N.B.J. No. 442 at para 44.
[10] His supplementary submissions did not assist, and in fact provided more reason to conclude that this proceeding is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process:
Most of his submission quotes Scripture. Clearly, the Applicant has freedom of conscience and religion pursuant to the Charter, but the Scripture he quotes is not related in any justiciable way to any State action which has interfered with this right.
The submission is rambling and nonsensical. For example, he claims that:
“The appropriation of my name and likeness by the Crown is evidenced by generation of the Birth Certificate extract, printed by the Canadian Bank Note Company Limited, derived from the private and confidential particulars of record pertaining to the event of my being born into the world, shown recorded in the Statement of Live Birth record; which thing, if not done for my benefit, is wrong-doing, a heinous crime to commit against an innocent child, an act of High Treason committed against Christ and God, a tort at common law and a breach of trust/fiduciary duty by sworn Crown officials, required by God at thee hand of all those party thereto.”
The submission also confirms that what he is seeking is some kind of Order that the law does not apply to him:
“I charge in the name of Jesus Christ, that the Crown, and all its fictional, artificial, secular and legal substance, be plucked up and cast into the sea, that I might get back to resting and gardening, as the earth is mine through the Word of God, but the world is the Crown’s: and the Crown’s legalized world is obstructing me, a child & minister of God, from accessing, subduing and enjoying my earth wheresoever I stand: as I am baptized in the name of Jesus Christ with the baptism of John, restored unto God; no more under sin and the curse of the law, but under grace.”
At the end of his Submission, he references what appear to be transcripts from two criminal prosecutions of him. It appears that what he is seeking in this Application, although not clearly stated, is injunctive relief prohibiting Crown prosecutions or actions against him.
As I have stated above, these sorts of claims have been held to be vexatious.
[11] I note that in his submission he expressed concern that I had referred to him as a plaintiff in my August 8, 2023 endorsement instead of applicant, causing him concern that I had not seen his Application. I confirm that I have seen his Application as well as his full submission herein which was emailed to the Court office.
[12] Therefore, I am dismissing this Claim on the basis that it is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process.
Justice Papageorgiou Date: August 24, 2023