Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-16-2690 DATE: 2024/06/07 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: JEFFREY PAUL LUCKHARDT, Plaintiff AND: JOHN HENRY DEVRIES, Defendant

BEFORE: Tranquilli J.

COUNSEL: Mr. Willson, G., for the Plaintiff Defendant, Self-Represented

HEARD: June 7, 2024

Endorsement

Endorsement

1The plaintiff brings a motion to strike the statement of defence per rules 60.12 and 30.08(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. I granted the motion for brief reasons with written reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

2The court’s strong preference is always to adjudicate legal disputes on their merits. The striking of the statement of defence is a remedy of last resort. Unfortunately, the record demonstrates the inevitable conclusion that this is the only remedy available in the circumstances.

3The action arises from personal injuries the plaintiff alleges he sustained as a result of the defendant’s dismantling of a corn crib on the plaintiff’s property in August 2015.

4Arrangements were made for the motion to proceed in person per special request of the defendant, who demanded the right “to be seen eyeball to eyeball”. However, defendant appeared by Zoom. He advised the court that his request was not permitted, which did not accord to the court’s understanding. In any event, the hearing proceeded in a virtual mode.

5The defendant instructed the court that he was only to be addressed as “John” and not with the surname “DeVries” as identified in the pleadings.

Background

Background

6This matter has a long procedural history that I will not detail in these reasons. The overall theme is that the defendant has declined to participate in the litigation in a meaningful way, despite having been given many opportunities in which to do so.

7The defendant was originally represented by counsel. In or about 2021, the defendant purported to return his birth certificate to the government and took the position that he was not a proper party to this proceeding and was not a “person” under the laws of Ontario.

8In December 2021, defence counsel was then removed from the record on counsel’s own motion. The defendant was to appoint new counsel, or to deliver a notice of intention to act in person. In April 2022, the defendant’s third-party claim against his insurer and insurance broker was dismissed with costs due to the defendant’s failure to comply with that order. In May 2022, the plaintiff advised the defendant he would pursue default judgment if the defendant continued to avoid responding to the plaintiff’s communications. The defendant failed to attend assignment court on four occasions in 2022. In October 2022, the plaintiff served his motion to strike the defence.

9The defendant then served a “Notice of Intention to Present and Respond as a Man”. The motion to strike was withdrawn in the expectation the defendant intended to participate. However, the defendant again failed to attend assignment court in March 2023. On that appearance, the court scheduled a 10-day trial for October 7, 2024, and pre-trial for June 18, 2024.

10The plaintiff brought a motion for an order compelling the defendant to fulfill undertakings and to approve the draft timetable. The defendant did not appear on the return of that motion on February 23, 2024. Justice Rady ordered the defendant to satisfy all outstanding undertakings from the discoveries in December 2018 and January 2019 within 30 days, failing which the court may strike out the statement of defence. She also awarded costs of $2,000.

11The defendant has not complied with that order and has not paid costs.

Positions of the Parties

Positions of the Parties

12The plaintiff submits the defendant’s conduct has made it impossible for the plaintiff to move this matter forward. The nature of the defendant’s failure to comply is extensive, with a disavowal of court orders and neglect in attending court and conducting himself in accordance with the Rules. It is evident he will not conduct himself in accordance with the Rules, despite having been given many opportunities to do so. It has only led to delay and costs to the prejudice of the plaintiff.

13The defendant has filed a 147-page submission. I have reviewed it. The court staff have appropriately noted several deficiencies in the submission. I have nevertheless reviewed it and received Mr. DeVries’ oral submissions today. In summary, he takes the following position:

He has the right under the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) to not be seen as a person under the law. He demands a judge that is independent and unbiased, with no conflict of interest. He demands a certified copy of my sworn oath of office. If I stop or interrupt him the court will have interfered with his right to a fair trial. I am not to rely on a “Coles notes” version of his material but must read all of it. I will hear it all “no matter how long it takes”. Finally, that the judge must adjudicate this issue under the law common to man and not under acts and statutes that do not apply in the “John Henry of the DeVries family court.”

14The court also received oral submissions from the defendant, of an estimated 45 minutes. I did not curtail his submissions.

15The defendant submits he does not believe there is a man or woman with a lawful claim against him. He is not subject to the foreign laws of the law society or this court or where the laws conflict with scripture and the laws of the creator. He should not be deprived of his lawful right to a fair trial. The government is a fiction of the mind. Canada is a service corporation and there is no contract between the defendant and the government, such that he is not subject to laws regarding him, his assets, or his property. As a natural person with natural born rights, he is a free person. He is not a slave to this foreign law and has no obligation to contract with such a fiction such as a legal corporation, municipal, provincial or federal corporation so as to be subject to the laws and rules of those entities.

16The defendant also made submissions as to the merits of the plaintiff’s action, through an affidavit made in March 2021, denying liability for the incident and the plaintiff’s injuries, and essentially arguing the plaintiff was responsible for the structural failure in the dismantling of the corn crib.

Analysis

Analysis

17A decision to strike a pleading is not made as a matter of routine. I am guided by the principles as outlined in Falcon Lumber Limited v 2480375 Ontario Inc., 2020 ONCA 310. Parties are to be given a reasonable opportunity to rectify non-compliance. Factors to consider include the nature of the failure, its impact on the administration of justice and the strength of the party’s claim, although compliance is expected irrespective of the merits. The costs to the non-defaulting party and the delay caused by the default are weighed when determining a proportionate remedy.

18In this instance, the defendant’s non-compliance is longstanding and repeated. The nature of his non-compliance and its impact on this proceeding and the administration of justice transcend consideration of the merits of his defence to the claim. It is evident he is not prepared to engage in a process where the evidence of plaintiff and defendant can be tested in accordance with the rules of evidence and Rules of Civil Procedure. He asserts his right to have a fair trial, but apparently, not through the process of this “foreign” court.

19The defendant’s submissions do not respond to the issues of compliance with undertakings as was ordered by Justice Rady. At its core, the submissions essentially deny the existence of such an action or any legal obligation to respond. He urged the court to dismiss the claim for lack of legal standing.

20The defendant denied that the items were undertakings. He objected to producing what he describes as personal financial information. He also claimed it was unclear if the order was properly made, given an alleged misidentification of the defendant as “Jeff” (ie. the plaintiff) instead of “John” during the previous motion. The defendant was not actually in court for this appearance. He relies on the hearsay reports of friends who reportedly attended as observers at the last court appearance. Having reviewed that motion record and Justice Rady’s endorsement, I am not satisfied there was any such material error. It was clear the issue was the outstanding undertakings of the defendant. The focus was on the defendant’s failure to satisfy undertakings. In any event, as noted in the plaintiff’s motion materials, the order and demand for costs were mailed to the defendant and returned unopened.

21The record also establishes that the defendant accuses the court of fraud and that he has persisted in communicating directly with the plaintiff, making threats of legal action, and issuing trespass notices if the plaintiff does not withdraw this proceeding. This is an offence to the administration of justice.

22I find that the defendant’s submissions and conduct throughout this matters amount to a common technique employed by individuals as an attempt to avoid their legal responsibilities. They attempt to do so by creating a fictional characterization of the facts and, through this deception, suggest they do not bear legal responsibility. It is a technique that consistently fails, and which accomplishes little, other than to take up court time, increase costs and delay the inevitable result: Royal Bank of Canada v Francoeur, 2023 ONCA 837, para. 4.

23Unfortunately, it is evident that the defendant has no intention to rectify his non-compliance, despite having been several opportunities in which to do so in the past several years. The plaintiff and court have exercised restraint and leniency in the face of the defendant’s chronic non-compliance and delay. I agree with and adopt the findings of my colleague Justice Garson in January 2023, that plaintiff counsel have in no way attempted to take unfair advantage of the defendant’s status as a self-represented litigant.

24It is evident that nothing will be accomplished if further opportunities to comply are extended to the defendant. It will simply enable ongoing unproductive behaviour, with the only result of further prejudice this plaintiff and the administration of justice.

25The defendant has been on notice that his statement of defence could be struck. He has not complied in satisfying the undertakings or in paying the costs order. It is evident from his submissions that he has no intention of doing so. There is no reasonable explanation for the delay in advancing the action. Further delay will serve no meaningful purpose. The striking of his defence is the only proportionate remedy in the circumstances.

26The statement of defence is therefore struck in its entirety, without leave to deliver another defence. The pre-trial date of June 18, 2024, and trial dates beginning October 7, 2024 are vacated.

27The plaintiff is entitled to his costs on a substantial indemnity basis, which are fixed in the amount of $7,918.48 and payable forthwith by the defendant to the plaintiff through his counsel.

28Draft order signed, amending paragraph two therein to correct “stuck” to “struck”, as is consistent with the relief sought in the notice of motion.