Jaiyson Dillon & Elio Dalle Rive - time to pay the CRA

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Justice Woods of the Tax Court of Canada on July 30, 2013 issued two judgments where taxpayer appeals were struck out as an abuse of process. In both cases the court cited Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 as the authority to conclude these appeals had no legitimate purpose.

Both judgments are very brief. I suspect that will be a pattern from this court as it tries to clear out the massive impending trial load (viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9483) that has emerged. Another pattern I expect to continue is that the Tax Court will order the taxpayer pay costs when these actions are struck out. In this case both taxpayers were ordered to pay $1000 within the next two weeks.

On to the judgments:

Dillon v. The Queen, 2013 TCC 242: http://canlii.ca/t/fzxbs

Jaiyson Dillon engaged in courtroom antics:

[3] Shortly after the hearing commenced with the Crown’s argument, the appellant indicated that he wished to interject. I did not permit the interruption, however, because the appellant repeatedly refused to stand to address the Court unless I stepped down from the bench and stood on even ground with him.

[4] Eventually the hearing concluded on the basis that I would decide the motion based on the written material before me and the decision was reserved. The Crown agreed to this procedure.

[5] After the hearing concluded and I had left the courtroom, I was informed by the court staff that the appellant would not comply with requests to leave the counsel table and eventually the appellant was removed from the premises by the police.

Dillon’s appeal was titled: “NOTICE OF APPEAL & NOTICE OF DEFAULT & NOTICE OF DISHONOR & NOTICE OF TERMS.” Justice Woods simply concluded these materials and arguments fell into the Meads v. Meads-type vexatious and invalid strategies and struck the matter.

Dalle Rive v. The Queen, 2013 TCC 243: http://canlii.ca/t/fzxbt

Elio Dalle Rive appealed his tax assessment on this basis (para. 2):

16. CROWN to provide proof that the Income Tax Act, and all other Statutory Regulations and Enactments do apply to the flesh and blood, human being named above as Elio, child of God, an individual, of the family Dalle Rive.

17. Legal recourse against all parties continuing with unlawfully attacking and forcing involuntary servitude, involuntary contracts and the unlawful enforcement of any other judicial jurisdiction other than Inherent Jurisdiction upon Elio, child of God, an individual, of the family Dalle Rive. All parties to be accountable under their full commercial liability.

Justice Woods simply cites Cassa v The Queen, 2013 TCC 43 and Meads v. Meads, and strikes the action.

I tried to learn a little about our two less than cooperative taxpayers.

Jaiyson Dillon seems to be a Toronto area massage therapist with an affinity for bathing in mud. Mud baths, you see, are filled with nutrients (http://www.massagemag.com/spa/treatment/mud.php)

Jaiyson Dillon, a massage therapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, has become enthusiastically proficient with using mud in his practice. "I use mud that is water-soluble so it doesn’t clog drains or leave stains on towels or tubs," Dillon said. "Because I just have a small one-person practice, I do not have wet facilities. As a consequence, I steep towels in mud water and drain the clear top water that has all of the nutrients still in it. I use the hot, mineral-enriched towels to loosen up muscle groups as I do massage. I also use the cold water to offer cooling forehead compresses during the end of my massage sessions, to revitalize the client."

Dillon said he thinks that his client base appreciates the amenity, which is offered without extra charge, and he encourages them to take mud home for at-home baths and treatments.

He also enthusiastically recommends mud to cure chickenpox (http://www.members.shaw.ca/nailsnirvana/Golden14.htm) (https://www.dmwsecure.com/~golden/heali ... ss_stories). Dillon is linked to a couple URL’s (http://homemudbath.clicksitebuilder.com) (http://www.geago.net) with no associated content.

I also found Dillon posting on various new-age websites, one being http://divinecosmos.com/, who’s host, David Wilcock, describes himself in this way:

David Wilcock is a professional lecturer, filmmaker and researcher of ancient civilizations, consciousness science, and new paradigms of matter and energy. His upcoming Hollywood film CONVERGENCE unveils the proof that all life on Earth is united in a field of consciousness, which affects our minds in fascinating ways.

A brief review did not identify Wilcock as an obvious promoter of tax avoidance schemes.

Elio Dalle Rive has a number of social media websites, most of which have little interesting information. He is also named as a director of “Alsi Technologies Corp.”, which goes nowhere I could see.

The one interesting tidbit is that his Youtube website links to a single video made by “Tru Freeman” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z72ZjaLHQU). This appears to be a tutorial on how to use the A4V scheme, pretty typical Sovereign Citizen material. Tru Freeman’s associated blog is also rather ordinary (http://freeman317.com/).

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

We're talking about a big-time business here, draping people with mud soaked towels in his kitchen then hosing them down afterwards. At least that's what I infer from his posting about his business. The guy seems typical of that mind-set. His taxes at stake must be absolutely trivial but he wants a free stage to show the world how he is defying the man. Even with the very abbreviated hearing process I see some problems with these clowns:

1 - They still take up Tax Court time and disrupt the court schedule for valid cases.

2 - Apart from Tax Court they are a huge time and cost issue for the Canada Revenue Agency and the Department of Justice before they go to court. Canada Revenue Agency has to have staff handle the appeals all the way to the trial decision and the DOJ lawyers still have to do all the paperwork and court precedure.

3 - They have the automatic right to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and I don't doubt they all will. This is a formal three judge appeal court with an already existing huge backlog and I can see them clogging that up totally even with abbreviated decisions.

Re Mowe's comment that he expects the Tax Court to impose costs. These guys don't seem to have any money to pay them anyhow.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... Even with the very abbreviated hearing process I see some problems with these clowns:

...

3 - They have the automatic right to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and I don't doubt they all will. This is a formal three judge appeal court with an already existing huge backlog and I can see them clogging that up totally even with abbreviated decisions.

Change is afoot on that last front. The Federal Courts are indeed clearly stressed, and that is reflected in an October, 2012 global review paper of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (http://www.fca-caf.gc.ca/bulletins/noti ... INAL_e.pdf).

Pages 25-29 address abuse of the Federal Courts. The subcommittee makes a number of recommendations, including that the Federal Courts be granted a stand-alone authority to regulate abusive actions, that the Registry have an independent authority to refer to the judges any document whose abusive character is "obvious and evident on even a cursory reading", and then the courts on their own motion could remove the abusive document, probably following a "show cause" hearing:

It seems to us that Rule 74 could be broadened to allow for documents disclosing instances of abuse to be referred to a judge or prothonotary for determination. For example, a statement of claim that appears abusive on its face could be subject to an early show cause procedure under Rule 74(2) and, if it is abusive, it could be purged immediately from the Federal Courts system.

Another interesting recommendation is to emphasize proportionality:

The principle of proportionality should be introduced concretely into particular rules so that those rules are consistent with Rule 3. For example, the existing documentary disclosure and oral discovery rules should be modified to reflect the need for proportionality.

I think the intent is that when the courts face abusive and unworthy litigation that the obligation on the 'abused' parties to meet procedural steps would be reduced.

I poked around to see if any legislative action on these suggestions but did not spot anything obvious.

Re Mowe's comment that he expects the Tax Court to impose costs. These guys don't seem to have any money to pay them anyhow.

Very true, that is often the case. However, a failure to pay costs can be used as a basis for contempt charges, and most of these folks do not seem to enjoy spending much time in detention. Also, Canadian jurisprudence recognizes that a failure to pay previous cost orders is important evidence to counter a litigant's claims that they should be allowed to initiate or continue litigation, either procedurally or via vexatious litigant status.

Every bit helps.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Thanks Mowe. News to me but they clearly have to do something. There is no way the Federal Court of Appeal, as it's currently regulated, can handle the upcoming tidal wave of meritless sovereign tax appeals.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

A couple of accounting firm newsletters (http://www.buchananbarry.ca/pdf/Tax%20N ... 202013.pdf) (http://www.parsons.on.ca/cantax/Parsons ... 202013.pdf) have commented on an interesting aspect of these two Tax Court of Canada cases of which I was unaware.

Apparently the Tax Court does not usually award court costs against unsuccessful parties in tax appeals which are conducted using the "informal procedure". That is contrary to the usual rule in Canada that an unsuccessful litigant can anticipate paying some amount to offset the successful party's costs for attending court.

Both Dillon v. The Queen and Dalle Rive v. The Queen were "informal procedure" appeals, but nevertheless each taxpayer was ordered to pay $1000 as their appeal was an "abuse of process" (paras. 9, 5, respectively). The newsletters highlight this is an unusual step and intended to warn off tax protestors.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

A couple of accounting firm newsletters (http://www.buchananbarry.ca/pdf/Tax%20N ... 202013.pdf) (http://www.parsons.on.ca/cantax/Parsons ... 202013.pdf) have commented on an interesting aspect of these two Tax Court of Canada cases of which I was unaware.

Apparently the Tax Court does not usually award court costs against unsuccessful parties in tax appeals which are conducted using the "informal procedure". That is contrary to the usual rule in Canada that an unsuccessful litigant can anticipate paying some amount to offset the successful party's costs for attending court.

Both Dillon v. The Queen and Dalle Rive v. The Queen were "informal procedure" appeals, but nevertheless each taxpayer was ordered to pay $1000 as their appeal was an "abuse of process" (paras. 9, 5, respectively). The newsletters highlight this is an unusual step and intended to warn off tax protestors.

SMS Möwe

I'd noticed the costs awards but drew the wrong conclusion. I thought the Tax Court couldn't award cost on informal and so, without bothering to check into it, I assumed these were general procedure not informal procedure. Obviously I'm wrong on that and, thinking about it, general procedure doesn't make sense in a hearing like these with insignificant amounts of tax involved. I'd said in a posting elsewhere that Canada does not have the equivalent of the American frivolous argument penalty. Perhaps this is the Tax Court's way of imposing one indirectly. However, compared to the $25,000 maximum in the US, the party and party costs imposed are trivial. Perhaps the Tax Court, if it gets irritated enough, will go to Solicitor-client costs.

[Burnaby49]

And the fight for justice and freedom continues! As I predicted in a prior posting Elio Dalle Rive has appealed his Tax Court loss to the Federal Court of Canada:

Even with the very abbreviated hearing process I see some problems with these clowns:
...
3 - They have the automatic right to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and I don't doubt they all will. This is a formal three judge appeal court with an already existing huge backlog and I can see them clogging that up totally even with abbreviated decisions.

The FCA better get a streamlined process into effect because I think they are going to get swamped.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

And the fight for justice and freedom continues! As I predicted in a prior posting Elio Dalle Rive has appealed his Tax Court loss to the Federal Court of Canada ...

Thank you for that update Burnaby49 - as always very appreciated. I think this is the first instance of which I am aware where an appeal has been launched of a trial decision that relies strictly on the Meads v. Meads reasoning.

Will you be able to tell if the FCA strikes or otherwise dismisses that the Dalle Rive appeal without written reasons? If so, I would be interested to know if that occurs.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

As far as I know the FCA always gives written reasons however I'm no expert on court procedures. In one case that I was following where they decided from the bench full written reasons were released later. I'll give details and a citation when it is heard but don't hold your breath. The FCA is backed up and it could be a year or two unless they decide to expedite on a test case basis. If the hearing is here in Vancouver and I find out about it I'll drop in for the show. The FCA doesn't care if I'm dressed like a bum.

As far as striking goes the FCA sometimes has a prothonotary dismiss the case but this is rare and when it happens there is still a published written decision.

I'm expecting a Dillon appeal too. I can't see any of these guys conceding gracefully. At least once they lose at the FCA they're done, no chance of the Supreme Court granting leave to appeal.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... The FCA better get a streamlined process into effect because I think they are going to get swamped.

Burnaby49 and I have been going back and forth in this message thread on the siege conditions that have emerged in the Tax Court of Canada and the Canadian Federal Courts as a wave of tax litigation has approached, all coming from what were industrial scale tax avoidance (if not evasion) strategies promoted by a range of 'businesses'.

Well, I am extremely pleased to say that I believe a critical stone has begun to roll downslope, and that an avalanche may build to cause a fundamental shift in Canadian courts. The Supreme Court of Canada last week released an extremely important judgment that has attracted practically no media or public attention. However, I have no doubt it has been scrutinized in detail by Canadian judges.

• Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7: http://canlii.ca/t/g2s18

This judgment is an instruction by the senior appellate court that it is time for a strategic change to the manner in which Canadian courts manage litigation. In brief, it costs too much to go to court. It takes too long. While 'justice' is a theoretical possibility, in reality the courts are not operating in a manner that permits many Canadians a meaningful way to enforce their legal rights. The judgment was written by a relatively new Supreme Court justice, Justice Karakatsanis. I appreciate the fact she does not mince words:

[1] Ensuring access to justice is the greatest challenge to the rule of law in Canada today. Trials have become increasingly expensive and protracted. Most Canadians cannot afford to sue when they are wronged or defend themselves when they are sued, and cannot afford to go to trial. Without an effective and accessible means of enforcing rights, the rule of law is threatened. Without public adjudication of civil cases, the development of the common law is stunted.

[2] Increasingly, there is recognition that a culture shift is required in order to create an environment promoting timely and affordable access to the civil justice system. This shift entails simplifying pre-trial procedures and moving the emphasis away from the conventional trial in favour of proportional procedures tailored to the needs of the particular case. The balance between procedure and access struck by our justice system must come to reflect modern reality and recognize that new models of adjudication can be fair and just.

...

[24] However, undue process and protracted trials, with unnecessary expense and delay, can prevent the fair and just resolution of disputes. The full trial has become largely illusory because, except where government funding is available, ordinary Canadians cannot afford to access the adjudication of civil disputes. The cost and delay associated with the traditional process means that, as counsel for the intervener the Advocates’ Society (in Bruno Appliance) stated at the hearing of this appeal, the trial process denies ordinary people the opportunity to have adjudication. And while going to trial has long been seen as a last resort, other dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and settlement are more likely to produce fair and just results when adjudication remains a realistic alternative.

...

[28] This requires a shift in culture. The principal goal remains the same: a fair process that results in a just adjudication of disputes. A fair and just process must permit a judge to find the facts necessary to resolve the dispute and to apply the relevant legal principles to the facts as found. However, that process is illusory unless it is also accessible — proportionate, timely and affordable. The proportionality principle means that the best forum for resolving a dispute is not always that with the most painstaking procedure.

[29] There is, of course, always some tension between accessibility and the truth-seeking function but, much as one would not expect a jury trial over a contested parking ticket, the procedures used to adjudicate civil disputes must fit the nature of the claim. If the process is disproportionate to the nature of the dispute and the interests involved, then it will not achieve a fair and just result.

...

[32] This culture shift requires judges to actively manage the legal process in line with the principle of proportionality. While summary judgment motions can save time and resources, like most pre-trial procedures, they can also slow down the proceedings if used inappropriately. While judges can and should play a role in controlling such risks, counsel must, in accordance with the traditions of their profession, act in a way that facilitates rather than frustrates access to justice. Lawyers should consider their client’s limited means and the nature of their case and fashion proportionate means to achieve a fair and just result.

The judgment itself is directed at under what conditions a trial judge can use a summary procedure to end litigation without full trial or procedure. The recent approach in Canada has been that early adjudication of a trial is only possible where one side's case is factually or legally hopeless - a very high threshold. This judgment opens that up, and authorizes procedures where at a preliminary stage a trial judge may make limited findings of fact that can conclude a matter, rather than leaving all disputed facts as live until the trial itself. The Supreme Court indicates that this is an authority that can be exercised broadly and, most importantly, it's hands-off for the appeal courts:

• 1. preliminary factual findings are due deference: para. 80
  
  2. exercise of summary judgment authority is due deference: para. 81
  
  3. an evaluation of whether a preliminary investigation of facts is in the interests of justice (the necessary threshold) is due deference: para. 82.

In all cases an appeal court can only intervene if the trial court made a "palpable and overriding error."

This is a historic change in Canada. When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect in 1982 the appeal courts made a fetish of procedural justice. The influence of American court approaches was very obvious, and the mere possibility of an unfair result became a basis to demand ever increasingly more baroque procedural safeguards. Trial court judges have learned the hard way that they are better off letting litigation meander on, endlessly, than try to narrow its focus and speed the process. The typical result was a re-trial.

It is with relief that I see the Supreme Court of Canada has decided to balance procedural fairness with efficiency. The scope of Hryniak v. Mauldin is directly restricted to one kind of procedure in one jurisdiction, but the overall theme is clear; Canadian trial courts have an authority to unclog their mechanisms even if that means some litigants receive a less than perfect exercise of their rights.

I see a number of downstream developments:

• 1. I anticipate many trial courts will attempt to develop more aggressive triage processes. This could be particularly beneficial in Canada's mucked up family law world where less formal approaches are desperately needed.
  
  2. Self-represented litigants can expect a more functional treatment, which I think will mean less concern that the courts are ideally fair but instead focus on tracking down actual issues that require judicial consideration. That means the judges taking more control - and it will be interesting to see how that may play out.
  
  3. Procedures to discourage vexatious litigation and litigants will ramp up.
  
  4. The traditional monopoly of representation by lawyers is inching just that much closer to the precipice.
  
  5. OPCA litigants beware!

I find this a very promising, hopeful development. This direction had to come from the 'top down', and now it has appeared. I think we are lucky in Canada that at the moment we have a surprisingly sane, pragmatic Supreme Court. There is much debate in the Canadian media as if the Court is activist or not, liberal or conservative, but frankly I do not see any of those traits as predominant. Instead the Court looks increasingly concerned on finding practical, functional approaches. This is a godsend.

I consider the period of about 1982-2000 to be a kind of jurisprudential dark age where judicial personalities (and their conflicts) drove far too much court function, discourse was based more on philosophy and ideology than function, and the judges danced about concocting legal tests that created an increasingly complex civil and criminal litigation process obsessed with safeguards and procedure. So I am extremely gratified to see a knife has appeared and we can perhaps cut back on the red tape, formalities, and just get the job done.

So in summary I am a lot less concerned about saturation of specialist courts. I think authorization has come from on high to cut to the heart of things like appeals. I would not be surprised, Burnaby49, if we see some leave and triage processes appear in the Federal Courts very soon. Hopefully the Tax Court as well.

I am quietly optimistic. That is a very rare state.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Part of what Mowe is writing about is a topic I recently wrote about here;

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9713&p=166144&hilit=Housen#p166144

In respect to the standards of review when Canadian court decisions are appealed. Mowe says;

The judgment itself is directed at under what conditions a trial judge can use a summary procedure to end litigation without full trial or procedure. The recent approach in Canada has been that early adjudication of a trial is only possible where one side's case is factually or legally hopeless - a very high threshold. This judgment opens that up, and authorizes procedures where at a preliminary stage a trial judge may make limited findings of fact that can conclude a matter, rather than leaving all disputed facts as live until the trial itself. The Supreme Court indicates that this is an authority that can be exercised broadly and, most importantly, it's hands-off for the appeal courts:

1. preliminary factual findings are due deference: para. 80

2. exercise of summary judgment authority is due deference: para. 81

3. an evaluation of whether a preliminary investigation of facts is in the interests of justice (the necessary threshold) is due deference: para. 82.

In all cases an appeal court can only intervene if the trial court made a "palpable and overriding error."

That goes to the heart of it. If a trial judge can dispose of a case through a finding of fact before trial then no trial is needed. The "palpable and overriding error" standard of appeals review would make it very hard for the loser to prevail on appeal. This would be a huge help in Tax Court issues where taxpayers have no hope of winning but are entitled to a hearing in any case. OPCA types might be heartbroken that they can't rant in court for days on exactly the same arguments that ten of their predecessors lost on but it would clear the court for taxpayers with real issues.

Like Mowe I blame the clogged up mess that is our current Canadian court system on Supreme Court of Canada Charter rights decisions in the 1980s and 1990s when the Supreme Court was obsessed with its opportunity to be important and make history. Every Charter defendant's right case that went to the Supreme Court ended with another decision that larded on more obligations by the police and courts until the whole thing has become pretty much unmanageable. Any violation of one of the beyond-counting rules set up by the Supreme Court constitutes grounds for appeal. So the courts, to avoid appealable errors, are zealously scrupulous that every last court procedure and decision protects defendants right to the point that the criminal courts are heading to paralysis. We have six months murder trial here. Trials that would last a few days in the States take weeks in Canada. As Mowe said;

This is a historic change in Canada. When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect in 1982 the appeal courts made a fetish of procedural justice. The influence of American court approaches was very obvious, and the mere possibility of an unfair result became a basis to demand ever increasingly more baroque procedural safeguards. Trial court judges have learned the hard way that they are better off letting litigation meander on, endlessly, than try to narrow its focus and speed the process. The typical result was a re-trial.

Exactly right. Couldn't have put it better myself.

To show the possibilities under this new Supreme Court standard just consider two trials that I posted on in Quatloos, Bernard Yankson and Charles Norman Holmes. Both were clearly totally hopeless, there was no uncertainty about the outcomes whatever, but they both had to be resolved in court hearings. Applying this new standard would allow the court to dispose of them without a hearing. As a taxpayer who pays to support the current system I say; about time.

I agree with Mowe that Family Law is a prime place to start. I just read a Supreme Court of British Columbia decision regarding a standard bread and butter child support and family asset allocation that took 28 days of court time. The cost to the government to hold that hearing was probably at least ten times greater than the value of the assets being allocate. Nothing in the decision that could not have been resolved through non-court arbitration. The main reason it took that long was that the husband wanted a public platform to vent his displeasure with the marriage, his wife, and the family court system. With luck, and more trickle-down guidance from the Supreme Court, this nonsense might finally be ended.

[JamesVincent]

I agree with Mowe that Family Law is a prime place to start. I just read a Supreme Court of British Columbia decision regarding a standard bread and butter child support and family asset allocation that took 28 days of court time. The cost to the government to hold that hearing was probably at least ten times greater than the value of the assets being allocate. Nothing in the decision that could not have been resolved through non-court arbitration. The main reason it took that long was that the husband wanted a public platform to vent his displeasure with the marriage, his wife, and the family court system. With luck, and more trickle-down guidance from the Supreme Court, this nonsense might finally be ended.

Nothing different here, except that a good number of times it is the judges who cause the delay. When I went through my separation and subsequent custody hearings there were 4 separate hearings just for the temporary custody order. When that was finally dealt with there were 3-4 more for the permanent order and that was for a pretty standard situation. In the past 4 1/2 years I have been in court over 50 times due to family law issues with my ex bringing up everything she can think of to continue it. And the judges have allowed it. Would be nice to see the whole process streamlined for everyone.

[Burnaby49]

And the fight for justice and freedom continues! As I predicted in a prior posting Elio Dalle Rive has appealed his Tax Court loss to the Federal Court of Canada:

Even with the very abbreviated hearing process I see some problems with these clowns:
...
3 - They have the automatic right to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and I don't doubt they all will. This is a formal three judge appeal court with an already existing huge backlog and I can see them clogging that up totally even with abbreviated decisions.

The FCA better get a streamlined process into effect because I think they are going to get swamped.

Time for a follow up on Mr. Rive and my comment posted above. Rive has finished with the Federal Court of Appeal and is moving on; no, not on with his life, but on to the Supreme Court of Canada.

First, his Federal Court of Appeal adventures. Keep in mind that Rive's case is entirely without merit. He was stomped on by the Tax Court in the bluntest, shortest, decision I have ever read by that court. However, as I said, he has an automatic right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and he did his best to clog it up with total Freeman nonsense in, apparently, as abrasive a manner as possible. The court records show 48 entries, if you are so inclined you can review the entire docket here;

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/In ... o=A-287-13

I'll go into some detail to show how much one persistent litigant, with no case at all, can consume the resources of the courts, the Department of Justice, and the Crown in general.

The first issue seems to have been the contents of the Appeal Book. This is the file of documents that are considered by the court in making its review of the Tax court case. Either the parties agree to the documents to be included in the book or the court has to determine what documents are relevant. Rive went with option B and, as far as I can tell, tried to lard the book with irrelevant documents.

5 2013-10-09 Toronto Notice of motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the appellant for an Order to dispose of all Crown claims against the Appellant and determine the contents of Appeal Book in writing filed on 09-OCT-2013

7 2013-10-09 Toronto Written representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the appellant in support of doc 5 filed on 09-OCT-2013

9 2013-11-01 Ottawa Order dated 31-OCT-2013 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Evans Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to the motion / document number 5 Result: dismissed The Appellant's Motion is denied. The documents included in his Motion Record as "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B" shall not be included in the Appeal Book. Filed on 01-NOV-2013 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 281 page(s) 63 - 63

- 2013-12-10 Toronto Letter from the respondent dated 10-DEC-2013 seeking directions in regards to the Apppeal Book filed by the Appellant. received on 10-DEC-2013

- 2013-12-18 Ottawa Communication from Registry to Judicial Administrator dated 18-DEC-2013 re: Respondent's letter (id 17) seeking Directions as to the content of the Appeal Book.

- 2013-12-19 Ottawa Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb dated 19-DEC-2013 directing "The parties are to agree upon the contents of the appeal book failing which the appellant is to bring a motion to determine the contents of the appeal book. If it is the respondent's position that the contents of the Appeal Book do not reflect the agreement of the parties, then the respondent should bring a motion, to have the documents that the respondent submits are not to be included, removed from the Appeal Book... If the Appellant should determine that he wants to add any document to the Appeal Book, he will have to bring a Motion to add such documents..." received on 19-DEC-2013 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)

While this squabble was still in motion the second issue came into play. Rive apparently refused to give his real name;

- 2014-01-27 Ottawa Written directions of the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Stratas dated 27-JAN-2014 directing "The appellant has brought this Court near to this point. This Court is close to dismissing the appellant's appeal. The Court will afford the appellant one last chance. I make the following direction, on that I expect will be obeyed. By February 7, 2014 the appellant shall filed a motion, compliant with the Rules, seeking the following relief: (1) an order settling the contentes of the appeal book, as directed by Justice Webb; (2) an order for an extension of time to file the appeal Book; and (3) an order amending the named appellant to Elio Dalle Rive, as directed by Justice Webb...." received on 27-JAN-2014

Based on this I assume two things, Rive was refusing to obey an order by the courts limiting what he could put into the Appeal Book and he was refusing to give his real name in the proceedings. No doubt he was demanding to be recognized as Elio, child of God, an individual, of the family Dalle Rive. The heart of the problem lies in the statement;

"The appellant has brought this Court near to this point. This Court is close to dismissing the appellant's appeal. The Court will afford the appellant one last chance."

Why? The FCA must have known by that time that the case was meritless. All Rive seems to have done was confront the court with uncooperative obstructive behavior. Why was the court consuming its limited resources to give him "one last chance"?"

It didn't matter in any case how many last chances Rive was granted because he had no intention of agreeing to the court's directions regarding the Appeal Book although he did seem to be willing to bend on the name issue;

13 2014-02-07 Toronto Notice of motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the appellant to determine the contents of the appeal book and for an extension of time to file the appeal book and to amend the name of the appellant in writing filed on 07-FEB-2014

Or, then again, maybe not;

14 2014-02-07 Toronto Affidavit of Elio, of the family Dalle Rive contained within a Motion Record on behalf of the appellant sworn on 07-FEB-2014 in support of Doc 13 with attached exhibit(s) M filed on 07-FEB-2014

Eventually the Fedral Court of Appeal had had enough;

21 2014-03-03 Ottawa Order dated 03-MAR-2014 rendered by The Honourable Madam Justice Dawson The Honourable Mr. Justice Stratas The Honourable Mr. Justice Mainville Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to the motion / document number 13 Result: dismissed The Court's decision is with regard to Appeal Result: dismissed Filed on 03-MAR-2014 copies sent to parties Transmittal Letters placed on file. entered in J. & O. Book, volume 282 page(s) 427 - 429 (Final decision)

So he made Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. He heads his appeal;

Elio, A Flesh and Blood Human Being, of the Family Dalle Rive, Authorized Representative of "Elio Dalle Rive" v. Her Majesty the Queen, et al.

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/i ... ?cas=35874

Apparently the SCC will give its answer on whether or not to accept Leave on Thursday. Not hard to give a prediction on what their decision will be. The header for the SCC Leave case shows that Rive, in the end, had his case dismissed without a hearing at the Federal Court of Appeal because of his refusal to accept orders from the court;

The Applicant filed a notice of appeal before the Tax Court. The Tax Court Judge granted the Respondent’s motion to strike out the notice of appeal without leave to amend and dismissed the appeal. Evans J.A. subsequently denied the Applicant’s motion to include Exhibit A and Exhibit B in his appeal book because “they are not necessary to enable the Court to fairly decide the appeal, unless they were admitted as evidence by Justice Woods of the Tax Court of Canada in connection with her decision under appeal striking out the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal in its entirety without leave to amend”. The Applicant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed “on account of the appellant’s repeated failure to comply with this Court’s directions”.

The FCA better stop being so tender-hearted about last chances and automatic rights to justice. If Rive is any example these guys have the potential to swamp the court with their relentless pursuit of Freeman stupidity. The Tax Court has already learned that lesson.

[Burnaby49]

Elio, A Flesh and Blood Human Being, of the Family Dalle Rive, Authorized Representative of "Elio Dalle Rive" had his application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs by the Supreme Court of Canada. Maybe he'll submit another application for leave to appeal to the SCC appealing the court's decision to deny leave.

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/i ... ?cas=35874

[Burnaby49]

Just had the below sent to me through my tax service. This is the decision in its entirety. It speaks for itself;

Dalle Rive v The Queen et al

HEADNOTE:

Topic: Procedure

Issue: At issue was whether the taxpayer's appeal should be dismissed. The taxpayer had repeatedly failed to comply with directions of the court and had been warned in a direction dated January 27, 2014 that failure to comply with that direction in any material respect would result in dismissal of the taxpayer's claim without further notice.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

BETWEEN:

ELIO, A FLESH AND BLOOD HUMAN BEING, OF THE FAMILY DALLE RIVE,
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF "ELIO DALLE RIVE", appellant,

and

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE: HON. WOODS
WILLIAM F. PENTNEY DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
H. ANNETTE EVANS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
RISHMA BHIMJI DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondents.

Present:

DAWSON J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
MAINVILLE J.A.

COURT/JUDGE/DATE:

Federal Court of Appeal, Dawson, J.; Mainville, J.;Stratas, J., March 3, 2014. (Docket: A-287-13)

ORDER

DAWSON, J.:—

UPON considering that:

i) On December 19, 2013, the appellant was directed to bring a motion to determine the content of the appeal book if agreement about the content of the appeal book could not be reached. The appellant was also directed to amend the style of cause.

ii) The appellant did not comply with the direction.

iii) On January 27, 2014, the appellant was directed to file a motion compliant with the Rules by February 7, 2014 seeking:

a) an order settling the contents of the appeal book;

b) an order for an extension of time to file the appeal book; and

c) an order amending the style of cause.

The January 27, 2014 direction warned that failure to comply with it in any material respect would result in the dismissal of the appellant's appeal without further notice.

iv) While the notice of motion literally complied with the direction, it was contained in a motion record that flagrantly disregarded the January 27, 2014 direction. Examples of the flagrant disregard of the direction include:

a) the supporting affidavit was irrelevant to the issues of settling the content of the appeal book, obtaining an extension of time and the amendment of the style of cause;

b) the written representations failed to deal with the relevant issues;

c) the order sought in the written representations was that the Crown "release foundational evidence and empirical evidence to verify their claims and allegations"; and

d) the January 27, 2014 direction advised the appellant that this Court could not grant relief in the nature of discovery.

IT IS ORDERED that:

[1] The appeal is dismissed on account of the appellant's repeated failure to comply with this Court's directions.

"Eleanor R. Dawson"
J.A.

"DS"

"RM"

[Burnaby49]

Well. Here we are three years down the road from my last posting on this nitwit and time for a bit of an update. To start with he just lost his house. Looks like he couldn't or wouldn't (you never know with these types whether it's ability to pay or a death wish) pay his mortgage and the bank pulled the pin.

https://www.ontario.ca/document/ontario ... ales-lands

Date: August 2, 2017

Sheriff, of the Regional Municipality of York
50 Eagle St. W
Newmarket, ON L3Y6B1
( 905-853-4809 Ext. 3)
File #11-2358

(150-P215E)

UNDER AND BY VIRTUE OF a Writ of Execution filed with the Sheriff of the REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK, dated September 25, 2015, under writ file number 15-2229, the real and personal property of ELIO DALLE RIVE also known as ELIO DALLERIVE, Debtor, at the request of CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, Creditor(s), I have seized and taken in execution all of the right, title, interest and equity of redemption of ELIO DALLE RIVE also known as ELIO DALLERIVE, Debtor(s) in and to:

ALL AND SINGULAR that certain parcel or tract of land and premises situated, being PCL 80-2, SEC 65M2977, PT LT 80 PL 65M2977, PT 26 65R19059; S/T RIGHT LT1033347; AURORA. NEWMARKET LAND TITLES OFFICE FOR THE LAND TITLES DIVISION OF YORK (NO. 65)

Municipally known as: 108 OCTOBER LANE AURORA, ONTARIO L4G 6Z8

All of which said right, title, interest and equity of redemption of the ELIO DALLE RIVE also known as ELIO DALLERIVE, Debtor(s), in the said lands and tenements described above, I shall offer for sale by Public Auction subject to the conditions set out below at 50 EAGLE ST. W. 1ST FLR NEWMARKET, ON L3Y 6B1, 905-853-4809 Ext. 3 on THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14TH , 2017 at 10:00 a.m..

CONDITIONS:

The purchaser to assume responsibility for all mortgages, charges, liens, outstanding taxes, and other encumbrances. No representation is made regarding the title of the land or any other matter relating to the interest to be sold. Vacant possession is not included in the sale of this property. Responsibility for ascertaining these matters rests with the potential purchaser(s).

TERMS:

Deposit of 10% of bid price or $1,000.00, whichever is greater.
Payable at time of sale by successful bidder;
To be applied to purchase price
Non-refundable.
Ten business days from date of sale to arrange financing and pay balance in full at 50 EAGLE ST, W, 1ST FLR NEWMARKET, ONTARIO.
All payments to be provided in cash or by bank draft, certified cheque or money order made payable to the Minister of Finance.
A Deed Poll provided by the Sheriff only upon satisfactory payment in full of purchase price.
Other conditions as announced.
THIS SALE IS SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION BY THE SHERIFF WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE UP TO THE TIME OF SALE.

Note: No employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General may purchase any goods or chattels, lands or tenements exposed for sale by a Sheriff under legal process, directly or indirectly.

Note that there is no guarantee that the house is empty. No doubt the buyers at Sheriff sales are used to that. Here in Vancouver the price of houses is virtually meaningless in our frenzy to tear them down and build condos. I've lived for 40 years in a very nice house that's suited us well but the property would be worth more with the house not on it. A few blocks away there is a row of four brand-new single family detached houses for sale as a redevelopment parcel. First thing the buyer will do is tear them down.

I digress. His Facebook page is a blank. Four friends and only they can view his posts if any. But his Youtube page tells a story. An unfortunate one for Elio. A foreshadowing of the loss of his house a few months ago. This is his Youtube channel;

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBneua ... hvvEvITwfg

And this is a video he linked to five years ago;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z72ZjaLHQU

Video speaks about the acceptance of the deed and the right verbiage one should consider before filing this at their county recorders office. Also speaks about what next steps we are taking to secure our property from any form of encumbrances.

A video about how to transfer your house out of the reach of creditors. Dean Germeten has a relevant question;

dean germeten 11 months ago
Can these steps be taken BEFORE a property goers into foreclosure?

And another cry for help;

tunzpro1 5 years ago
my parents paid off the mortgage that was in their name. took out new mortgage before coming into the knowledge of the fraud. the property is now in foreclosure. sale date has already taken place. the bank is now trying to get the sale approved by the court. Im attempting do whatever I can to stop the bank from approving the sale. any suggestions? I will check out your educational website.

Questions that are now relevant to Elio.

Next a four year old video from John Spirit;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lppUP5rgKMU&t=1s

I'm not going to watch it. Probably same old same old. Then Robert Menard's masterpiece "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception". Man, he's aged since those golden days. And last, Pigpot's dream date, Marc Stevens;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZY5oujLgxw&t=91s

And that's about it. I remember when the Soviet Union broke up. People were parading around Red Square with signs saying "The Russian Revolution. A 75 Year road to nowhere". Looks like Elio's last few years have been much the same.