Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-107-MO DATE: 2024/03/21
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – RUDI SAWATZKY
Applicant: Rudi Sawatzky
Counsel: Jamie Bocking, for the Crown Rudi Sawatzky, Self-Represented
HEARD: March 21, 2024
Reasons for Judgment
HOLOWKA J.
[1] The Applicant, Rudi Sawatzky, brings an application for the following relief:
a. Dismissal of all charges against Rudi Sawatzky.
b. An injunctive order prohibiting unspecified individuals or organizations from referring to the Applicant by anything other than his given name, Rudi Sawatzky.
c. An injunctive order prohibiting unspecified individuals or organizations from making further contact with the Applicant except:
i. on matters relating to breaches of the peace;
ii. pursuant to the rules of equity and with the permission of this court; or
iii. with respect to warrants issued with affidavits of harmed men or women attached.
d. An injunctive order prohibiting unspecified individuals or organizations from trespassing on the Applicant’s private property.
[2] I have considered the applicant's submissions. He submits that they are based on the common law and equity.
[3] They are not supported by admissible evidence. The application notice refers to material the Applicant would be relying upon. These materials were not served on the Crown and filed with the court. The Applicant sought to produce these materials today. The Crown objected to the court receiving these documents. I refused to accept these documents being filed as they were not in compliance with the Criminal Proceeding Rules. The contents of these documents are unknown and any substance contained therein would have been untested by the Crown.
[4] Contained within the notice of application are arguments that appear similar to abuse of process allegations or allegations of violations of rights pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Without commenting on the merits of those arguments, they are most appropriately raised in a trial and supported by admissible evidence.
[5] Based on the material before me, there is no basis to dismiss the charges facing Mr. Sawatzky.
[6] The Applicant seeks injunctive relief against unspecified individuals or organizations. He has sought to do so by bringing an application through a Form 1 Notice of Application under the Criminal Proceedings Rules. This procedure is improper, and there is no evidence before the court. The parties against whom he seeks an injunction have not been served. The requests for injunctive relief are summarily dismissed.
[7] The Applicant seeks that the hearing be sealed. There is no basis for this request, and it is contrary to the “open court principle” as enunciated in R. v. Mentuck 2001 SCC 76 and the multitude of cases that have applied the principle.
[8] There are pseudolegal arguments contained within the notice of application. I have considered the following authorities with respect to these kinds of arguments: Howard v. Canada (A.G.), 2018 ONSC 785; R. v. Bydeley, [2011] O.J. No. 6282 denying leave to appeal from 2011 ONCJ 842; and R. v. Duncan (2012) 2013 ONCJ 160.
[9] I found the following language of Justice Myers in Eli v. Morlog to be particularly apposite, although in a civil rather than criminal law context:
All litigants are entitled to be treated with respect and with simple human decency before the court. The OPCA [Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument] positions that they adopt are not. In my view, it is more respectful to OPCA plaintiffs to truthfully tell them that they are engaged in a despicable enterprise that cannot be tolerated than to pretend that there is some merit which deserves academic debate and response. In my view, precious judicial time should be spent on resolving real matters. Simply taking judicial time to respond seriously to OPCA claims gives the claimants a measure of success in advancing their improper purposes. Associate Chief Justice Rooke spent more than enough of his very valuable time creating a textbook of abusive OPCA practices in Meads v. Meads. In my view, not another moment of judicial resources or party expense should be invested on OPCA claims. They should be summarily nipped in the bud with reference to Meads v. Meads and no more as set out in para. 2 above. [1]
[10] While there are many evidentiary issues in the matter before me, I should not be taken as endorsing the pseudolegal arguments advanced by the Applicant, Rudi Sawartzky. I have considered Meads v. Meads 2021 ABQB 785. To the extent that the Applicant relies upon these arguments, the application is summarily dismissed.
[11] The Applicant seeks costs. Given the outcome of this application, there shall be no order for costs.
[12] The Applicant, following submissions, requested that the criminal prosecutions be stayed to allow him to renew his application with proper materials. This request was denied as being without merit.
[13] A transcript of the proceedings shall be prepared and sent to Mr. Sawatsky.
The Honourable Justice B. Holowka
Released: March 25, 2024
Footnote: