The current case is Fiander v Mills, 2015 NLCA 31
http://canlii.ca/t/gjw43
The appellant, Edward Fiander, was charged with Fisheries Act offences. He sued the Crown prosecutor, the fisheries officer involved, and his provincial court trial judge. Fiander advanced the "I can opt out of being a person via the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 6" scheme flogged by the Human Rights League in Canada and John Spirit, and argued that he had been wrongfully prosecuted (para 2). The Crown prosecutor and judge applied to strike out the lawsuit (paras 3-4)
Fiander didn't show up at the hearing to strike the motion so the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court judge struck out the entire lawsuit, including the action against the fisheries officer who had not made submissions (para 5). The judge and prosecutor received a lump sum cost award of $1,800.00, each (para 6).[1] In dry legal terms, this appeal addresses the correctness of an applications judge’s decision to strike out a statement of claim on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that it was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. The legal principles relating to these issues have been dealt with by this Court on many prior occasions. This characterization, however, masks a bigger underlying issue: how a court should respond to claims that allegedly not only are unsupported by a cause of action, but are so fundamentally at variance with and profoundly contrary to accepted law and principle that they appear to be advanced for an improper and ulterior purpose.
[2] The appellant, facing charges under the Fisheries Act, RSC 1985, c. F-14, sued, in the Trial Division, the Crown prosecutor, the Provincial Court judge and the fisheries officer who laid the charges, claiming damages for, amongst other things, violation of his human rights and for economic losses. In making his claims, he drew a distinction between his existence as a human being and his status as a person under Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He claimed to have waived his rights as a person, thereby justifying his assertion that the fisheries legislation under which he had been charged did not apply to him.
Fiander appealed, arguing he was injured at the time of the hearing, and his counsel, a Stuart Pierce, had been unable to attend. Pierce was not a lawyer but Fiander had signed a "Full Power of Attorney for Legal Work". This is meaningless (para 9). At the appeal Fiander did the talking, though it looks like Pearce provided the script (para 9). Fiander apparently did not know the terms he was using (para 9).
Fiander didn't help his case by ignoring his own written arguments supporting his appeal;
In any case I doubt it mattered. As the quotes will show the court wasn't cutting him any slack at all. They seemed heartily sick of him and his antics. This is now a very common reaction to Canadian Freeman type arguments and bullshit. Everyone has had it with them and their freeloading ways.[10] In the written argument filed by the appellant in support of the appeal, he does not address any of the grounds of appeal specified in his notice of appeal, except for making a couple of general references to various international treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which support, he says, his claimed right to harvest and dispose of natural resources as he sees fit. Instead, he asserts, again, that because he has waived his right to recognition as a person before the law, the Fisheries Act does not apply to him. He asserts that, by ignoring this waiver, the three respondents have committed the crime of extortion. He also asserts that the name of the information charging him with violations of the fisheries legislation is based on a birth certificate issued by the government but that such a certificate does not operate as a personal identification, only as a statement of historical facts. He asserts that those matters are “fatal” to the respondents’ position and they have received unjust enrichment, violated the Canadian Bill of Rights, his human rights in Canada and have unlawfully prosecuted him under laws that have no force against him.
Fiander argued:
1. the trial judge was biased,
2. the Canadian Bill of Rights is the supreme law of Canada (note - it's not)
3. his human rights had been violated because the trial judge did not recognize that he had opted out of having a Strawman, via the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that meant the Fisheries Act didn't apply to Fiander.
Fiander's action was hopeless on many grounds. First, he hadn't pled allegations that were a basis for a claim against the defendants (para 18). Second, opting out of Canadian law was rejected (para 19):
The only possible argument that the prosecutor, fishery officer and judge stepped outside of their official roles or judicial capacity, as the case may be, relates to the argument that the fisheries legislation does not apply to the appellant. But that submission has no traction whatsoever. The assertions that an individual is entitled unilaterally to “waive” his rights as a person and thereby shield him or herself from the application of legislation intended to be applied to all Canadians is absurd and has been uniformly rejected by Canadian courts. See Meads and cases therein cited. The general application of the law to all is the essence of the rule of law, one of the fundamental principles of our constitutional polity. All citizens of and most residents within Canada are subject to the law and cannot opt out of it.
The Strawman is a fiction (para 20):
The appellant also asserted in his statement of claim that he is the “grantor and sole beneficiary” of the “Estate” of the human being known as “Edward John Fiander” and that the government continues wrongfully to “administer” his estate in breach of trust by forcing him to pay licence fees and seizing his fish, amongst other things. This notion of treating a named individual as an “estate” that is somehow separate from the person who is subject to the law and that is free from governmental regulation is also a concept unrecognized by the law of Canada. It is just nonsense and has no basis for inclusion in a statement of claim.
The idea a birth certificate has powerful effects and creates a new legal entity is bogus (para 21):
The appellant’s assertion in the statement of claim that the issuance of a birth certificate, which merely records an historical fact and does not create identity, somehow nevertheless results in “the process of the creation of an Estate with the parents or guardians granting to the government, as Trustee, their offspring’s (child) share of the earth over which it was given dominion by its creator, the earth and all things of it (Genesis 1:26-28)” is, quite apart from the incomprehensible nature of the assertion, unconnected to any basis for asserting a claim for damages against the respondents.
An argument that there was an error in the Fisheries Act preamble that invalidated the legislation was also rejected (paras 22-30).
The trial judge was therefore correct to strike out Fiander's action - it was "irremediably defective" and "fatally flawed out of the starting gate." (para 31).
These claims were frivolous because they were "completely baseless" and had "no recognized foundation within the jurisprudence in our judicial system and no rational connection to the remedies being claimed" (para 37). Advancing such hopeless litigation indicated its purpose is vexatious, and leads to the inference that the Fiander lawsuit was "advanced for an ulterior and improper purpose and is thereby an abuse of process." (para 37). This litigation "... amounts to a veiled threat to public officials ... that if they proceed ... they will face inconvenience, nuisance and unnecessary cost" (para 37). This is abuse of process (para 37). Meads v Meads is correct (para 38), and that a claim to unilaterally opt out of Canadian law via a Strawman strategy is (para 39):
... such a jurisdictional challenge is founded on a baseless assertion that has no rational support in Canadian law or principle and is in derogation of or profoundly contrary to it and has no prospect of being advanced as a legitimate legal argument, it would be open to the court to conclude that the litigant is abusing the court’s process for an ulterior purpose.
The Newfoundland Court of Appeal declared that any OPCA argument of this kind is presumptively frivolous, vexatious, and warrants preemptive suppression by the trial courts (para 40):
The trial judge had turned what was supposedly a preliminary hearing into and actual trial hearing in Fiander's absence without enquiring into why Fiander had not shown up. It appears that normally he would have been entitled to another shot but the judge just dropped the hammer in his absence. On appeal Fiander gave what might well have been valid reasons for his non-attendance but the appeals court didn't care. They said, in essence, that his case was so defective that it was doomed to failure regardless of whether or not he got a new trial so why bother?In this case, this Court has now declared that arguments relating to opting out of legislation, the fractionating of human personality to support claims of not being subject to law and the fanciful use of arguments based on birth certificates to create notions of estates to advance submissions that would otherwise have no rational support in the jurisprudence, have no basis in the law in this jurisdiction. It would therefore be open to a trial court in the future, when made aware of such submissions in other proceedings, to treat those submissions as presumptively vexatious and abusive and to act preemptively to prevent such claims from improperly clogging up the legal system to the cost and prejudice of those who would otherwise have to face and deal with them. The court would not have to wait for a formal application to strike from an affected party but could also act on its own motion to deal with the issue, applying such procedural safeguards (such as a show-cause hearing initiated by the senior court official in the relevant judicial centre) as may be appropriate in the circumstances. It must be remembered that even rule 14.24(1), by its language, does not require a formal application by a party to initiate a consideration as to whether a pleading is an abuse of the process of the Court.
It was therefore correct for the trial judge to strike out Fiander's action even without an application to do so (para 42). While normally it would have been preferable to adjourn till Fiander's status could be identified, here the Fiander lawsuit was so hopeless and abusive that it was correct to strike it out without further delay (paras 44-49).
Meads v Meads is correct that targets of OPCA litigation deserve elevated or indemnification costs (para 51). Here, a lump sum award without a separate costs hearing was not inappropriate in order "... to bring this proceeding to a conclusion and to send a message that this type of litigation will be dealt with swiftly and decisively." (para 56).
The Court of Appeal awarded a lump sum of $1,500.00 to each defendant (para 58).
This is a clear and explicit call by an appeal court to crush and suppress OPCA litigation without hesitation. Just what we need to try and beat some sense into these clowns. Although, thinking it over, if they acted sensibly I'd be out of a job here on Quatloos.
As for Fiander, the only thing I could find about him was this news story:
http://www.gulfnews.ca/News/2013-04-10/ ... isherman/1
He may actually have some valid arguments about fishing regulations. Maybe he is just an average guy trying to support his family. But going full Freeman isn't going to resolve things in his favour.