Meads v Meads, 10 years later

[DNetolitzky]

So I thought I'd note that this Sunday is the 10th anniversary of the Influential? Notorious? Mother of all obiter? Alberta Court of King's Bench decision of Meads v Meads. I won't link it since I'm pretty sure most readers are familiar with that bit of case law.

What you probably are not aware of is that this is the last anniversary where Associate Chief Justice Rooke is a justice of the Court. He is retiring on December 16, 2022, four months from today. It's pretty common knowledge that I have worked with him during that period. Not having him at the Court will be very strange. He has been with ABKB since 1991.

Now, I suppose the question for me is, how many of the old-timer pseudolaw personalities are going to take another run at the Court, with him gone?

No, I don't need the additional work. Quite busy as it is.

Donald Netolitzky

[Burnaby49]

Retirement? While Sandra Anderson is still in play? An outright dereliction of duty!

[eric]

Now, I suppose the question for me is, how many of the old-timer pseudolaw personalities are going to take another run at the Court, with him gone?

I don't know about the old-timers but there are rumblings among some of the new constitutionalist types on Facebook that one of them might attempt something. They have this quaint belief that once he dies or retires his court decisions leave with him.

[DNetolitzky]

Well, if that's the plan, they missed their chance. For a very long time there had been significant uncertainty in Canada about "horizontal" stare decisis. If Judge A in Court X made a decision, what impact does that have on other judges in Court X?

That legal question mark is now resolved. The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19 ruled that the first decision in the same court is nearly as binding as a ruling from a court "further up the food chain". So, until the Alberta Court of Appeal rules otherwise, there isn't much basis to challenge decisions of Associate Chief Justice Rooke within this subject area.

But it would be nice to have a clear precedent on the (in)validity of New Constitutionalist theories.

Donald Netolitzky

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Interesting that there's an actual ruling about a "horizontal" ruling. There have several High Court of Ireland and English/Northern Ireland cases where Rooke has been referenced, even though clearly outside the jurisdiction, let alone the decision of a "superior" court.

[Albert Haddock]

Interesting that there's an actual ruling about a "horizontal" ruling. There have several High Court of Ireland and English/Northern Ireland cases where Rooke has been referenced, even though clearly outside the jurisdiction, let alone the decision of a "superior" court.

In the English courts, while decisions from other jurisdictions aren’t binding precedents they can be persuasive; I imagine that the situation is similar in most if not all common law jurisdictions.

As far as Meads v Meads is concerned, which bits of it are ratio decidendi and which obiter dicta, and what does that mean as far as it being a binding precedent is concerned?

[Burnaby49]

Essentially all of Meads is obiter, commentary not required to support the court's decision. Mr. Meads was a deadbeat dad in a divorce proceeding who refused to pay child support. Very much the bread and butter of any court system, there are thousands of prior judgments on the issue. The novelty in this one is that Meads defended his refusal with masses of sovereign/freeman gibberish he'd downloaded from the internet and printed out wholesale. Apparently he included virtually every sovereign scan circulating, past and present. The court was not required to do a detailed review of the whole reeking pile. Legally all they had to do to support the decision was to refer to a prior court order requiring Meads to pay support along with a short commentary that all of the submitted legal support for refusing to pay was worthless fake law and not of any legal relevance.

It's my understanding that a two page decision ballooned into a 188 page encyclopedia simply because Alberta Queen's Bench, which was being swamped by this stuff, wanted a single comprehensive legal precedent to cover all of the various sovereign schemes then circulating. They chose the Meads lawsuit because of the massive amount of different schemes Mr. Meads stuffed into his submissions. Mr. Meads had provided the court with all the documentation it needed to analyze and refute virtually all of the current schemes. On that basis the fact that the actual case being decided was entirely trivial was irrelevant.

While Meads is a huge work, a massive overkill for the very simple issue it covered, it saved the Alberta courts from having to write innumerable individual decisions on the tidal wave of sovereign crap being filed, they just referred to Meads. Other courts also saw the virtue in this and judges in courts across Canada and elsewhere, instead of struggling to figure out what the hell all the nonsense they were facing was, also referred to Meads. Even if other courts did not consider Meads as precedence it was still extremely useful in explaining the basis of a court’s decision.

So, as far as creating binding precedence is concerned, it is probably of little use outside of Alberta but, as a reference source and as an influence on decisions, it has been huge.

[DNetolitzky]

So I hope Burnaby49 will excuse me, but his classification of Meads v Meads as primarily obiter is not correct. The status of that decision was discussed at some length in Crossroads-DMD Mortgage Investment Corporation v Gauthier, 2015 ABQB 703 by Applications Judge Schulz, who at that time was classified as a Court Master. The Alberta Court of King's Bench renamed the position at the beginning of September.

In Crossroads-DMD, Adam Christian Gauthier argued Meads is obiter, and not binding. I'll quote some passages from Crossroads-DMD, since Applications Judge Schulz does a very detailed review of why Gauthier was wrong on this point. The first thing is that "obiter" does not mean reasoning that is not necessary to reach a decision, but reasoning that is outside the facts of a court dispute. Applications Judge Schultz explained the distinction this way at para 33:

Obiter are statements of law, principle or conclusions, that do not directly relate to the outcome of a court decision. For example, a judge might write a decision that says because of facts A I conclude B, and therefore do C, but if I the facts had been X, I would have concluded Y, and then I would have done Z. The X, Y and Z analysis is obiter. The court did not use that part of the decision to reach its actual conclusion. An obiter component of a judgment is not binding on other courts. It is, however, potentially influential.

So the situation in Meads was that Mr. Meads made many, many legally incorrect claims, and Associate Chief Justice Rooke rejected Mr. Meads' claims on many, many bases. None of those are obiter. The rules and conclusion applied by Associate Chief Justice Rooke were to the facts of Mr. Meads' claims. When a court says, "I get to result X by reasoning A, and in the alternative B, and in the alternative C", all of that is non-obiter. That makes up a large part of the Meads v Meads decision.

A second aspect of Meads that is unusual is that the decision is a "collecting", or "review" decision. It identifies and cites many authorities that are binding, due to those originating from a higher court. Again, Applications Judge Schulz explains this:

Another rule Gauthier should be aware of is that there are parts of Meads v Meads which are obiter, but which are nevertheless binding on me because those passages originate in other, non-obiter court decisions. For example, at para 216 Rooke ACJ indicates notaries do not have judge-like authority. Meads did not argue that in his materials or court appearance, so that statement is obiter. However, Meads v Meads then references an Alberta Court of Appeal decision: Papadopoulos v Borg, 2009 ABCA 201 at paras 3, 10. That decision includes the following explicit statement:

The appellant put great stock in the fact that his unconventional documents had been notarized by a Notary Public, but the involvement of the notary could not give these legally ineffective documents any force of law. ...

The passage in Papadopoulos v Borg is not obiter and is binding on me. It is from the Alberta Court of Appeal.

And that applies to a lot of what is in Meads, since that decision cites from numerous appellate court authorities, and the Supreme Court of Canada. Provided Meads does not misstate the rule from a higher court, what is in Meads is authoritative. This characteristic is unusual, admittedly, because of Meads' atypical "collecting/review" character.

The third observation Applications Judge Schulz makes is that obiter can become operationally near binding because of its broad application:

There is a third important point for Gauthier to understand concerning Meads v Meads. The weight and influence of a judgment increases when other judges and courts accept that a decision provides the correct approach to a legal issue. Judicial reasoning operates in that sense on a consensus basis, and if a judge’s obiter reasoning is generally accepted then that obiter becomes increasingly influential. Consensus results in a generally understood and agreed upon principal of law.

The Meads v Meads judgment is very widely cited and accepted in Canada. ...

If Gauthier thinks he can wave away Meads v Meads by a simple declaration that decision is just one judge’s opinion or because it is obiter, then he is wrong. What was one opinion is now a judicial chorus. Not one court has sung a dissenting note. Anyone who makes claims like the “Strawman” clause and then says Meads v Meads does not apply to them is going to face a very, very steep uphill battle in our Courts.

I've omitted the now dated status of Meads from 2015. Meads has now been cited and endorsed, often as the authoritative source on the subject, by seven of Canada's ten courts of appeal, and the Federal Court of Appeal. Meads has been identified and endorsed by courts in eight other countries, by my count, even including Austria, which is pretty strange for a common law decision. All the Australian Courts of Appeal have endorsed it. So has the final court of New Zealand.

So at this point, Meads is pretty much close to gospel. Meads is the most cited decision from the Alberta Court of King's Bench, post 2012. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no court decisions in the world that reject Meads' review of information, statements of law, and conclusions.

For a trial-level court, that is all pretty unusual.

Donald Netolitzky

[Burnaby49]

Just because that Netolitzky guy works as a lawyer assisting the judges at Alberta's Queen's Bench, the court that issued the Meads decision, he thinks he knows more about their jurispurdence than I do. Unfortunately, as his last posting shows, he's right.

[DNetolitzky]

Well, I do have the advantage that I am officially designated as "Learned in the Law", and even have the magic paperwork to back that up.

But I have not purchased Level Two Uber Wizzard Robes. There are some limits.

Donald Netolitzky

[AnOwlCalledSage]

[1] I begin the afternoon by reviewing the conduct earlier today of Cameron Hardy, a man known as Cameron Hardy, and I now will explain to Cameron Hardy, a man known as Cameron Hardy, of the consequences to Cameron Hardy, a man known as Cameron Hardy, if he repeats the behaviour.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2 ... pc190.html

This is related to:

REGINA v. CAMERON HARDY
RULING RE: ORGANIZED PSEUDO-LEGAL COMMERCIAL ARGUMENTS
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE D. PATTERSON

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2 ... pc189.html

[noblepa]

[1] I begin the afternoon by reviewing the conduct earlier today of Cameron Hardy, a man known as Cameron Hardy, and I now will explain to Cameron Hardy, a man known as Cameron Hardy, of the consequences to Cameron Hardy, a man known as Cameron Hardy, if he repeats the behaviour.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2 ... pc190.html

This is related to:

REGINA v. CAMERON HARDY
RULING RE: ORGANIZED PSEUDO-LEGAL COMMERCIAL ARGUMENTS
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE D. PATTERSON

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2 ... pc189.html

I am not familiar with the case R v. Cameron Hardy. Is the judge going to the annoying lengths of repeatedly referring to the gentleman as "Cameron Hardy, a man known as Cameron Hardy", because the gentleman was arguing that there was somehow a distinction between Cameron Hardy and "a man know as Cameron Hardy"?

That seems like a very FOTL style argument; "I am not Cameron Hardy, who is charged with a crime. I am a man known as Cameron Hardy, a completely separate entity. Therefore, I, a man known as Cameron Hardy, can not be held responsible for the actions of Cameron Hardy".

[eric]

The judge, by the repetition of "Cameron Hardy" is being very careful to ensure that no OPCA type argument as to dual identity can be made.

It is difficult to understand how a judge can respond otherwise where a litigant in court argues any variation of the “Strawman” scheme, particularly if that proceeding degenerates into a cat and mouse affair where the litigant claims to speak in two or more modes. 233 The risk of doing otherwise is illustrated by the retrial of Detaxer Cameron Hardy, who successfully appealed a conviction for contempt of court on the basis that his guilty plea was made on behalf of his “Strawman” — but not by Hardy himself. 234

https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/do ... TocPage31/(hash:(chunk:(anchorText:zoupio-_TocPage31),notesQuery:'',scrollChunk:!n,searchQuery:'"cameron%20hardy"',searchSortBy:RELEVANCE,tab:search))
Cameron Hardy, CAMERON HARDY, or the person representing Cameron Hardy has played this game before.
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2 ... ultIndex=5
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2 ... ultIndex=4
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2 ... ultIndex=2

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Millionaire Calgary 'pseudolaw' practitioner hit with $300,000 in fines for 'abusive and illegal conduct'
Last August, the judge ruled against Sandra Ann Anderson in her refusal to pay $160,000 owed on the mortgage of a condo
Nov 4th

With the help of her sister, Susan, Anderson then claimed she couldn’t attend an Oct. 13 hearing after she was involved in a car accident, wrote the judge.

“Ms. Anderson has a dismal record of making false statements and claims. I conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that the purported car accident was a fabrication intended to drag out and frustrate the RBC v Anderson proceedings further,” stated Rooke.

As a result, Rooke fined Anderson $52,000 but also noted Anderson has made clear she has no intention of voluntarily paying those fines.

The judge, therefore, directed Royal Trust to pay the court $250,000 from Anderson’s inheritance from her father within 30 days as a security to cover future court costs.

Rooke also warned Anderson’s sister against involving herself in her sibling’s antics.

https://nationalpost.com/news/local-new ... d709ea730e

[eric]

You can read all about Ms. Anderson's latest escapades here...
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2 ... ultIndex=1
And a couple of interesting points. I had skipped over reading about her latest guru since he wasn't Canadian but he's mentioned here:

This document claims to be authorized by the “Canonum De /us Positium”, a fictitious system of law invented by Australian Frank O’Collins: Donald J Netolitzky, “After the Hammer: Six Years of Meads v Meads” (2019) 56:4 Alta L Rev 1167 at 1192-1193; Idris v Mohamed, 2021 ABQB 529 at paras 19-20.

I never did get around to writing about Idris but he was part of the group that were generating those lovely "legal notices" in community newspapers a few years back with lots of UCC citations.

[18] As I observed in RBC v Anderson #4 at para 23, Ms. Anderson has made it very clear she will never voluntarily pay any penalty amount. I, therefore, repeat the step I took in RBC v Anderson #4. I Order that:

1. Royal Trust shall within 30 days transfer to the Clerk of the Court $52,000 as payment for Ms. Anderson’s latest Rule 10.49(1) penalties,

2. Ms. Anderson’s inheritance is reduced $52,000, and

3. Royal Trust shall also reduce Ms. Anderson’s inheritance by the expenses incurred by Royal Trust to conduct the Rule 10.49(1) payment, in an amount as approved by the Court on subsequent application on notice to Ms. Anderson.

[19] In RBC v Anderson #4 at para 25, I informed Ms. Anderson that:

If Ms. Anderson’s conduct does not change, I may also direct Royal Trust pay part of her inheritance into Court as security for costs against Ms. Anderson’s future court costs and Rule 10.49(1) penalties.

[20] I conclude that step is now appropriate. I, therefore, also Order, in addition to the Rule 10.49(1) penalties, that:

1. Royal Trust shall within 30 days pay to the Clerk of the Court $250,000 as security for costs, and

2. Ms. Anderson’s inheritance is reduced by $250,000, and

3. Royal Trust shall also reduce Ms. Anderson’s inheritance by the expenses incurred by Royal Trust to conduct the security for costs payment, in an amount as approved by the Court on subsequent application on notice to Ms. Anderson.

IANAL but I wasn't sure that a residuary beneficiary could have their share reduced by the court before the estate payout.

[Albert Haddock]

So I thought I'd note that this Sunday is the 10th anniversary of the Influential? Notorious? Mother of all obiter? Alberta Court of King's Bench decision of Meads v Meads. I won't link it since I'm pretty sure most readers are familiar with that bit of case law.

What you probably are not aware of is that this is the last anniversary where Associate Chief Justice Rooke is a justice of the Court. He is retiring on December 16, 2022, four months from today.

A couple of judgments dated 16th December:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2 ... kb836.html
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2 ... kb838.html

[Burnaby49]

I forgot all about my plan to write up the various Anderson lawsuits. Maybe I subconsciously quailed at the thought of diving into that bottomless sea of madness.

I'll see if I can get round to it. Vancouver is currently paralyzed by a pair of massive back-to-back snowstorms and record breaking cold temperatures so I'm stuck at home instead of the endless pubbing I'd normally be doing in Xmas break. Currently my only babysitting responsibility is swapping the hummingbird feeders every 45 minutes to stop them from freezing. My life is regulated by a kitchen timer.

[jcolvin2]

Currently my only babysitting responsibility is swapping the hummingbird feeders every 45 minutes to stop them from freezing. My life is regulated by a kitchen timer.

Over the last few days, my wife has been doing the same hourly swapping out of multiple hummingbird feeders in Seattle. Our hummingbirds (chiefly Anna’s) once upon a time were migratory (IIRC to SoCal), but the urban areas around the Salish Sea now support a significant year round population that we have to succor through the occasional cold snaps.

[eric]

Your damn hummingbirds wouldn't last very long around here - minus 35 to minus 40 at night. I did notice today that some of the multiple great horned owls that nest beside my house were busy. The waxwings eat the remnants of my apples and chokecherries and the owls eat the waxwings. Lots of gray/brown and orange feathers on the front lawn today. At least my schnauzer hasn't killed any owls yet this winter.

[Burnaby49]

Currently my only babysitting responsibility is swapping the hummingbird feeders every 45 minutes to stop them from freezing. My life is regulated by a kitchen timer.

Over the last few days, my wife has been doing the same hourly swapping out of multiple hummingbird feeders in Seattle. Our hummingbirds (chiefly Anna’s) once upon a time were migratory (IIRC to SoCal), but the urban areas around the Salish Sea now support a significant year round population that we have to succor through the occasional cold snaps.

I grew up in Vancouver and never saw a hummingbird until maybe 20 years ago or less. Back then they seemed exotic and I fed them in summer and they migrated in winter. Now the lazy little bastards are a fixture and stay year-round freeloading to survive the winter. We have another massive dump forecast for tonight then a warming spell where I might even be able to leave the feeder out all day.