Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-23-00035547-0000
Date: 2025-02-05
Court: Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Applicant/Responding Party: Thea Jackson
Respondent/Moving Party: Dario Jackson

Before: J. R. Presser
Counsel: Ruchelle Heckburn, for the Applicant
Respondent: Self-Represented
Heard: January 21, 2025

Endorsement

I. Overview

[1] On January 21, 2025, the respondent/moving party, Dario Jackson, brought a motion before me. He sought an order dismissing the application of the applicant/responding party, Thea Jackson, with prejudice, on the following grounds:

• (a) lack of jurisdiction;
• (b) failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted; and
• (c) failure by the applicant and the court to file affidavits proving jurisdiction rebutting the respondent’s “affidavit of fact.”

[2] The respondent refers to himself in his motion materials as “stardust bey aka Dario Jackson in his capacity as sovereign Arawak Indian and executor of the estate of Dario Jackson.”

[3] The essence of the respondent’s position seems to be that this court has no jurisdiction over him or what he styles as the private matters of his divorce from the applicant and his obligation to support the three children of the parties’ marriage. He also argues that this court has no jurisdiction over him because he is a sovereign Arawak Indian and a “living man.”

[4] For the following reasons, the respondent’s motion is dismissed. This court has jurisdiction over the parties’ divorce and the applicant’s claims for support for the children of the marriage.

II. Background, Evidence, and Arguments on the Motion

[5] The parties were legally married on October 4, 2004.

[6] The respondent is an American citizen. He came to Canada with the applicant in 2004 and obtained permanent resident status in 2006. According to the applicant, the respondent resides in Ontario, although he would not confirm this at the hearing of this motion.

[7] The parties have three children together, aged 19 years, 13 years, and 11 years.

[8] The parties separated in November 2017. On separation, the parties entered into a verbal agreement in relation to parenting time and child support. They agreed that the children would reside primarily with the applicant mother, and that the respondent father would have parenting time.

[9] The applicant and the children reside in Toronto. The children all attend school in Toronto and all of their healthcare providers are in Toronto.

[10] On separation, the parties also agreed that the respondent would pay $275 per week in child support.

[11] The respondent paid support under the parties’ agreement consistently until September of 2021. At that time, according to the uncontradicted evidence of the applicant on this motion, the respondent lost his job because he refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19. This was contrary to his employer’s vaccine mandate.

[12] After having lost his job, according to the applicant, the respondent moved residences. He did not disclose his new address to the applicant. As a result, the respondent has not had parenting time with the children since his move.

[13] In April 2023, the applicant initiated proceedings in this court, seeking a divorce and child support.

[14] On August 1, 2024, the respondent filed an “affidavit of fact.” In it, he indicated that he challenged the jurisdiction of the court over non-status Indians and Indian Arawak people pursuant to s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. He submitted that the court was required to submit proof of its jurisdiction over him, and that without such proof, any claims against “JACKSON, DARIO: Estate are null and void.” The respondent further submitted that the court must provide an “affirmed affidavit to rebut this affidavit point by point signed in wet ink under penalty of perjury, within 7 days of receiving this affidavit and mail it to the PO BOX provided in cover letter.”

[15] At this motion, the respondent submits that the failure of the court and the applicant to provide affidavits proving jurisdiction amount to admissions of lack of jurisdiction. He argues that the failure to provide rebuttal affidavits renders any further actions in this matter null and void.

[16] The respondent asserts that he is an Arawak Indian and that, as such, the court does not have jurisdiction over him in this matter. He also claimed his “status as a living man,” which he said also meant that the court did not have jurisdiction over him.

[17] At the hearing of the motion, the respondent acknowledged that he and the applicant were legally married. However, he maintained that there was no need for a legal divorce. This, according to the respondent, is because he had couriered an affidavit of rescission of contract relating to his and the applicant’s marriage licence to the state of Georgia, where the parties were married. The respondent’s affidavit of rescission and proof of delivery to an address in Georgia were uploaded to Case Center.

[18] The applicant submits that ending a legal marriage is more than a matter of contract. It requires more at law than rescinding a contract to obtain a marriage licence.

[19] The applicant resists the respondent’s motion. She argues that this court has general inherent jurisdiction under the Constitution Act, 1867 to ensure that justiciable rights under the Divorce Act, are upheld. She also submits that this court has jurisdiction to address divorce applications as well as custody and support issues concerning the children of the marriage. In the applicant’s submission, the respondent’s motion is a tactical attempt to employ Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (“OPCA”) to evade his child support obligations. She submits that the respondent’s arguments defy logic, that they do not meet legal standards, that they aim to derail due process, and that the court should prioritize the right of the children to be supported and her right to divorce by dismissing the motion.

III. Analysis

(A) Jurisdiction

[20] I reject the respondent’s argument that the court does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

[21] This court, the Superior Court of Justice for the province of Ontario, is a court of general inherent jurisdiction: Constitution Act, 1867, s. 96. This means that this court has inherent jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters, concerning both substantive and procedural law: Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, at para. 26; Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, at para. 362.

[22] Where there are justiciable rights, there must be a court of competent jurisdiction to uphold those rights: Canadian Liberty Net, at para. 32. The constitutionally-entrenched status of provincial Superior Courts as courts of general inherent jurisdiction means that, absent express legislation to the contrary, Superior Courts have jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters, both substantive and procedural: Canadian Liberty Net, at para. 32.

[23] The federal government of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to marriage and divorce: Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(26).

[24] The Divorce Act is legislation enacted by the federal government of Canada, under its constitutional jurisdiction to legislate in relation to marriage and divorce. The Divorce Act establishes that, in Ontario, the Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction over divorce applications, as well as over custody and support of the children of the marriage: Divorce Act, ss. 2, 3(1), 4(1), 15.1. As the applicant is claiming a divorce and the corollary relief of child support from the respondent, the Divorce Act applies.

[25] Under s. 3(1) of the Divorce Act, a court in a province has jurisdiction over divorce proceedings if either spouse has been habitually resident in the province for at least one year prior to commencement of the application. This requirement is met here. The applicant has been ordinarily and continuously resident in Ontario since 2004. Her application was commenced in 2023. This court has jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim for a divorce from the respondent.

[26] Under s. 4(1) of the Divorce Act, a court in a province has jurisdiction over a claim for corollary relief (like a claim for child support) if either spouse is habitually resident in the province at the commencement of the proceeding. This requirement is met here. The applicant was resident in Ontario when she commenced her application claiming child support in 2023. This court has jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim for child support from the respondent.

[27] The respondent’s position that this court does not have jurisdiction over him appears to flow from OPCA tactics. OPCA litigants have been described as raising arguments that are “mostly nonsensical and a purposeful abuse of the court system in order to achieve a result without addressing the merits of the litigation”: Woodley v. Cipolla, 2022 ONSC 7096, at para. 26. As noted in Woodley, at para. 26, summarizing Meads, OPCA tactics commonly include:

• unique nomenclature and name motifs;
• a concept that “everything is a contract”;
• a denial that the court has jurisdiction over an OPCA litigant;
• use of “obsolete, foreign, or typically otherwise irrelevant legislation”; and
• egregious litigation conduct.

[28] Much like the arguments of OPCA litigants in Meads and Woodley, the respondent’s arguments have no merit. They aim to distract from the substantive merit of the applicant’s claim, waste precious court time and resources, and enable the respondent to evade his obligation to provide financial support for his children.

[29] The authority of legislation does not flow from contract. Individuals are not parties to statutes. Rather, legislative enactments govern all individuals within their scope by their inherent force: Meads, at paras. 382-383. Governments have authority to act and legislate unilaterally, as dictated by the constitutional and legislative framework: Meads, at paras. 411-413.

[30] The respondent does not have to contract into the operation of the Divorce Act. It governs him and this case whether he consents to its operation or not. It does so by dint of the fact that he is married, has children from that marriage, and the applicant was resident in Ontario for more than a year and was still resident in Ontario at the time she commenced her application.

[31] The respondent’s assertion that he is Indigenous does not eliminate this court’s jurisdiction. This case involves consideration of “the best interests of [the children], not the disposition of property or a land claim”: Woodley, at para. 33. As Myers J. held in Sarac v. Wilstar Management Inc., 2021 ONSC 7776, at para. 25:

This country recognizes that real injustices have been inflicted upon its Indigenous communities…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.

[32] In sum, the respondent’s arguments that this court does not have jurisdiction in this matter must fail.

(B) Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Can Be Granted

[33] I reject the respondent’s argument that the applicant has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

[34] As noted above, the applicant seeks a divorce and child support. These are both claims she is entitled to make, and that are within the jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine. These are both claims on which this court can grant relief under the Divorce Act.

(C) Failure by the Applicant and the Court to Provide Affidavits Proving the Court’s Jurisdiction

[35] There is no merit to the respondent’s argument that the court has no jurisdiction because neither the court nor the applicant has provided him with an affidavit rebutting his “affidavit of fact” (in which he asserts that the court has no jurisdiction).

[36] There is no requirement under the Divorce Act nor under the Family Law Rules for the applicant to file an affidavit rebutting an “affidavit of fact” in order to establish the court’s jurisdiction. The court has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is not an issue in the litigation.

[37] The issues in the litigation, which may properly be the subject of evidence (including by affidavit) at trial or on a motion, are the issues that relate to the claims the applicant has made in her application. The respondent’s so-called “affidavit of fact” did not relate to the issues in the litigation. It was a spurious OPCA tactic to distract from the substantive issues in this case, and to waste the time and resources of the applicant and the court. The applicant was not required to respond to the “affidavit of fact.” Her failure to do so did not somehow undermine the jurisdiction of the court in this case.

[38] Neither was the court required to provide an affidavit rebutting the respondent’s “affidavit of fact.” The court itself is not a party to the litigation. The court does not file affidavits, which are sworn or affirmed evidence, in the matters that appear before it for hearing and determination. Courts do not provide affidavits to litigants. Courts review affidavit evidence provided by parties and witnesses as part of hearing and deciding issues and cases. The respondent’s suggestion that the court does not have jurisdiction because it did not provide an affidavit asserting its jurisdiction is nonsense.

IV. Disposition

[39] The respondent’s motion is dismissed.

V. Costs

[40] If the parties are unable to agree on the costs of the motion, the applicant shall serve and file written submissions of no more than two double spaced pages exclusive of bills of costs within 14 days. The respondent shall serve costs submissions 14 days thereafter. There shall be no reply submissions. Submissions shall be sent to sasha.wentges@ontario.ca.

J. R. Presser
Released: February 5, 2025