Dennett v Gilbert[2] Mr. Dennett sues several people for trespass to goods.
[3] He claims that the property shown in Exhibit “A” to the claim has been taken from him by robbery and theft and he requires that the defendants delivered up his property to him by no later than December 7, 2020.
[4] Exhibit “A” to the claim consists of two pictures each showing three unnamed young children.
[5] He is claiming possession of children as his property.
2020 ONSC 6865
http://canlii.ca/t/jbl5r
The judge didn't waste any time stomping Dennett.
I'd thought that even the most desperate fools had given up on trying hyphenated names and fee schedules but these scams apparently still make sense to people without any themselves. The judge shared my view and showed a complete unwillingness to delve into whatever Dennett thought he was getting at;[7] Mr. Dennett has a very wrong idea of how to use the civil courts. He styles himself:
“i, man; james [of the Dennett tribe] prosecutor.
[8] He asserts that the common law provides him with rights apart from the law that applies equally to all residents of Ontario. By virtue of the common law, he claims to bring this proceeding in “james Court at Ontario Superior Court of Justice ‘The Court of the Queen’s Bench’ ”. He pleads specifically that he is not bound by the Rules of Civil Procedure.
[9] Mr. Dennett asserts that if any interference occurs with his claim, he requires payment of $1 per second from the time he commenced the claim. He also purports to charge $1,000 per day to the defendants and the CAS from January, 2014 for any failure to restore his “property” by December 7, 2020.
[10 My only reason for providing notice to Mr. Dennett rather than striking the claim now is that the subject matter involves children. I do not know if there are proceedings involving the children or who the children are. But, I want to give Mr. Dennett one chance to state a proper case if he has any legal basis to assert a claim.
Actually Justice Meyers was an unlucky judicial selection for anyone wanting a sympathetic ear about arguments that fantasy law is as valid in the courtroom as real law. He has a history of immediately, brutally stomping on such attempts by dismissing the action and sometimes designating the plaintiff as a vexatious litigant. We're accustomed to this behavior from the rough and ready, wild west courtrooms of Queen's Bench in Alberta but it now seems to have spread to Ontario, a genteel civilized province. Some examples of Meyers' courtroom style;[11] I am not inviting Mr. Dennett to try to explain his legal theories. Someone has told him or taught him that there is a common law right available to people who call themselves differently-spelled names and that the regular law does not apply to those how adopt this magic incantation. I hope that he has not paid a salesman to learn these theories. They are vexatious nonsense that is designed to tie up the courts and cause defendants to incur costs and aggravation. See: Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII).
Gao v. Ontario WSIB
2014 ONSC 6497
http://canlii.ca/t/gf731
and;
Jarvis v Morlog
2016 ONSC 4476
http://canlii.ca/t/gsdr5
It's Judge Meyers position that not only are OPCA position bullshit but the plaintiffs that come into his court and puke them out know they're bullshit too and are just trying to game the system. He quoted two pargraphs he'd written in Jarvis v Morlog;
Then, after putting the boots to all of Dennett's arguments Judge Meyers took the carrot and stick approach. First the stick;[2] …Some courts take pains to write lengthy, learned reasons to show OPCA plaintiffs how each element of their pleading is abusive. I respectfully take a different view. In my view, plaintiffs who file OPCA claims are playing a game that is designed to frustrate the system and inflict unrecoverable expense and needless stress on the defendants. OPCA claims have been derided as abusive over and over again in courts across the country. I do not believe for a minute that OPCA plaintiffs believe that they can separate their legal personalities by putting their names in capital letters or calling themselves “Noble” or otherwise. They know that they cannot avoid the law or government jurisdiction by claiming to be a free man who has no contract with the government. They don’t refuse to accept the free services of the police, ambulance attendants, firefighters, doctors, nurses, and other publicly funded service providers who approach them in their normal names in the absence of a contract. Nor do I accept that these plaintiffs believe in good faith that they can avoid their just debts by creating unilateral fee schedules and using legal words jumbled into sentences that have no English meaning. In my view, even if some OPCA plaintiffs are being conned by “gurus,” they still know that at bottom they have no legal defence to the debts or claims asserted against them and they only go to the gurus to avoid their legal obligations, at best, or to lash out in bad faith at the system and their creditors at worst. It plays right into OPCA plaintiffs’ ill motives to treat their claims with respect and spend hour upon hour of judicial time writing lengthy, reasoned responses to the gibberish that they spew.
[3] All litigants are entitled to treated with respect and with simple human decency before the court. The OPCA 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.
Then the carrot;[13] If Mr. Dennett is trying to use the court system to lash out at people with whom he is angry and frustrated, that will not be tolerated.
[17] I wish to be clear with Mr. Dennett. The laws of Ontario and Canada apply to him and all others no matter how he chooses to spell his name or what words he uses. The common law is part of the law of Ontario and Canada. It provides no extraordinary rights to him.
With helpful advice on how to proceed in a manner that won't result in another Meyers evisceration;[14] But, if Mr. Dennett has a claim to make under the prevailing law, that is not relitigating claims decided already in this or other courts, he should have a chance to re-cast his claim to do so.
Can't be fairer than that.[15] Mr. Dennett should seek the assistance of a lawyer to determine if he has any entitlement to bring a claim in relation to the children. The Law Society of Ontario runs a referral service and will connect people with lawyers who practise in the field required. The Lawyer Referral Service can be reached at http://www.findlegalhelp.ca/.
[16] Law Help Ontario also provides free legal assistance at 393 University Ave Suite 110, Toronto, ON M5G 1E6 (416) 628-3552. In addition, Downtown Legal Services at the Faculty of Law of the University of Toronto can be reached at law.dls@utoronto.ca or 416 934-4535. Osgoode Hall Law School at York University also provides free legal services through Community & Legal Aid Services Programme (CLASP) that can be reached at (416) 736-5029.
[18] I am providing Mr. Dennett with time to revise his claim to set out a basis to sue in his proper name for proper relief under the law. If he chooses to continue on his abusive path, his claim will be summarily dismissed.
