It's never a good sign when the Federal Court of Canada, when reviewing an application that a liigant has raised in that court, refers to the Roger Callow case in the decision.
Why not? This is the first paragraph of Callow;
 Roger Callow is a litigant possessed of seemingly inexhaustible stamina. His behaviour suggests that he views the Canadian court system as something akin to a perpetual, all-day, all you can eat buffet. Having been rebuked by the courts and tribunals of British Columbia, the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Callow has now taken aim at Ontario. Ontario lacks the jurisdiction to deal with his case. As a result, Mr. Callow’s litigation must be stopped. Now.
West Vancouver School District No. 45 v. Callow, 2014 ONSC 2547http://canlii.ca/t/g6m27
And it is being used as part of an adverse decision against Allen Boisjoli. Allen recently tried an end-run around the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and the dreaded judge Rooke by filing an action at the Federal Court of Canada. As you can guess it didn't end well. He ended up running head-first into the equally dreaded Prothonotary Roger R. Lafrenière.
This all started on November 7th, 2016 when Allen tendered three documents for filing at the Registry’s Edmonton Local Office on behalf of Allen Boisjoli Holdings. The documents were titled: “Statement of Claim”, “Bill of Lading” and “Certified Promissory Payment Instrument”
This is a portion of Allen's Statment of Claim;
ON AND FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD:
Comes now, a man commonly known as Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family, I come as Trustee for foreign Trust #983170-321522-193058 a.k.a. ALLEN BOISJOLI dba ALLEN BOISJOLI HOLDINGS.
1.) We claim that between April 22, 2016 and the present certain individuals namely Photini Papadoptu, and/or Ray Gerrard, and/or other unknown individuals acting as public servants who are, or were, employed by Edmonton Police Services, and/or Alberta Specialized Prosecutions Unit, and/or Alberta Justice Services, and/or Government of Alberta, and/or unknown Crown Corporations, did unlawfully commit theft of trust property, corporate espionage; did use trust property without authorization; did falsely arrest; did kidnap and unlawfully detain/confine/incarcerate; did slander & libel on national news media, the Trustee Allen Nelson of the Boisjoli family; and, did intimidate & extort said Trustee under color of law in order to obstruct justice and unlawfully discharge liability for a debt owed by a Peace Officer employed at the time, directly or indirectly by the Government of Alberta for prior unauthorized use of trust property, false statements of fact, creation of a colorable persona under color of authority, unlawful detainment and coercion of the Trustee.
Public servant refusing to deliver property §337: Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. - R.S., c. C-34, s. 297.
Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. - 18 U.S. Code §242
"Consent makes the law." (A contract is a law between parties, which can acquire force only by consent.) – Consensus facit legem. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856
"A benefit is not conferred on one who is unwilling to receive it. That is to say, no one can be compelled to accept a benefit” - Invito beneficium non datur. - Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Edition Pg.961
"That which is ours cannot be transferred to another without our act (consent)" - Id quod nostrum est sine facto nostro ad alium transferri non protest. -Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Edition Pg. 879
"The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived" - Derativa potestas non potest esse major primitiva. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856
"An equal has no dominion over an equal" - Par inparem imperium non habet. - Blacks Law Dictionary 7th Edition Pg. 1673
Cure and Maintenance/Relief Sought:We require compensation for trespass and damages in the form of an order of the Federal Court for monetary compensation in the amount indicated in the attached/enclosed Bill of Lading within a reasonable amount of time, set as thirty (30) days, or as ordered by the Justice presiding.
Allen explained to the Federal Court why he was raising this action while simultaneously defending himself against criminal charges at Queen's Bench,
The clerk of the court here in Edmonton [here] has expressed some concern that I may be filing in the wrong venue and asked me to write a brief explanation. I have 3 points to express on this matter.
1. I am foreign, my trust is foreign. This is essentially an international contract dispute. When one researches a foreign sites trust you will find that the laws where the trust was formed is what shall govern it.
2. The respondents are all employed by or a part of the Government of Alberta. This is a tort vs. Crown Corporations and employees.
3. I am unable to file in Queens Bench as there are members of that judiciary that are involved, which will be revealed through this claim. It would be silly of me to file a claim against these public servants in their own court.
Therefore I [beelieve] the Federal Court would not only be the proper venue for this claim, but essentially the only venue that would be [aable] to settle this in my humble opinion.
So Prothonotary Lafrenière's job was to decide whether or not to accept Allen's documents and allow him to continue the action. The decision came out November 15th. It didn't start well;
 This is the fourth time I have had to deal with documents tendered by Mr. Boisjoli on behalf of an entity identified as a trust.
 On May 2, 2014, Mr. Boisjoli tendered a statement of claim, a surety bond and an affidavit with attachment, signed by “Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family”, at the Edmonton Registry. Directions were issued to the Registry the same day directing that the documents be rejected on the grounds that:
“…the named plaintiff (a trust) cannot be represented by an individual. Although a proceeding may be brought by a trustee as representing the trust and its beneficiaries, a party who acts or seeks to act in a representative capacity must be represented by a solicitor: Rule 121.”
 On May 12, 2014, Mr. Boisjoli attempted a second time to file substantially similar documents which were previously rejected, as well as a document entitled “Commercial Security Agreement”. Once again, Directions were issued to the Registry to reject the documents as follows:
For essentially the same reasons as set out in the Court’s Directions issued on May 2, 2014 pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Courts Rules, the statement of claim, surety bond, affidavit and other documents tendered via e-filing by “Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family” shall be rejected for filing. It is not open to a party to waive any court rules or procedures as such function can only be performed by the Court.
 On June 2, 2014, Mr. Boisjoli persisted in his attempt to file the same documents with the Registry, this time accompanied by new documents entitled “Counter Offer”, “Notice of Copyright/International Service/Security Agreement” and “Bill of Lading”. The following Directions were issued on June 6, 2014:
For essentially the same reasons as set out in the Court’s Directions issued on May 5 and 12, 2014 pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Courts Rules, the documents tendered by “Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family” on June 2, 2014 shall be rejected for filing. The Registry is authorized to reject any similar documents tendered by Mr. Boisjoli without seeking further directions of the Court.
 What followed was a lengthy period of silence from Mr. Boisjoli, at least in the Federal Court. I have taken judicial notice, however, of the Judgment of Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (ACQB) in Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 (CanLII), which was the consequence of Mr. Boisjoli’s attempts to enter what he purported was a default judgment that he delivered to the ACQB on September 25, 2015.
 At paragraph 19 of his decision, ACJ Rooke noted that Mr. Boisjoli had been previously tried and convicted of criminal intimidation and harassment and had targeted government workers. He further observed at paragraph 105, that Mr. Boisjoli’s documents “appear to be adapted from a template, and that his failures to replace target names suggests he has at least two more parallel Three/Five Letters actions in the works”. ACJ Rooke concluded that Mr. Boisjoli should have no right to file material in any Alberta court. Mr. Boisjoli was declared a vexatious litigant and restricted from accessing Alberta courts based on his history of attempts to misuse court procedure in Alberta “to further a criminal enterprise.”
 On October 30, 2015, ACJ Rooke issued Supplementary Reasons for Decision further restricting Mr. Boisjoli’s ability to communicate with the ACQB: Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 690 (CanLII)
And then, after this depressing litany, we meet Roger Callow and my prior quote from his case;
 Having been rebuffed by the Alberta courts, Mr. Boisjoli now returns to this Court for a fourth time to attempt to file what can best be described as spurious and ineffective documents. This is clearly a continuation of a pattern of criminal intimidation and harassment by Mr. Boisjoli of government employees. It is also somewhat reminiscent of the history of vexatious litigation instigated by another self-represented litigant, Mr. Roger Callow, who turned to the Federal Court (Court File Nos. T-1386-11 and T-2360-14) after the British Columbia courts repeatedly closed the door on him.
 In West Vancouver School District No 45 v Callow, 2014 ONSC 2547 (CanLII),
Mr. Justice McKinnon made the following comments, which are completely apt to this present case:
Roger Callow is a litigant possessed of seemingly inexhaustible stamina. His behaviour suggests that he views the Canadian court system as something akin to a perpetual, all-day, all you can eat buffet. Having been rebuked by the courts and tribunals of British Columbia, the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Callow has now taken aim at Ontario. Ontario lacks the jurisdiction to deal with his case. As a result, Mr. Callow’s litigation must be stopped. Now.[/
And so Allen was stomped on yet again. Not only was his action terminated, it was terminated with extreme prejudice. He was declared a vexatious litigant.
THIS COURT ORDERS AND DIRECTS
1. The statement of claim, bill of lading and certified promissory payment instrument tendered by Mr. Allen Boisjoli shall be rejected for filing.
2. The Registry is instructed to forward a copy of this Order, along with copies of all retained materials tendered by Mr. Boisjoli on May 2, 2014, May 12, 2014, June 2, 2014 and November 7, 2016, to the local office of the federal Department of Justice and the Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta.
3. On an interim basis, Allen Boisjoli, aka Allen Nelson Boisjoli and Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family, and Allen Boisjoli Holdings are restricted from filing any documents in the Federal Court, other than an appeal of this Order, except with leave of the Court.
4. Allen Boisjoli, aka Allen Nelson Boisjoli and Allen-Nelson of the Boisjoli family, is prohibited from attending at any Registry office of the Federal Court and from any communication, direct or indirect, by any means, with a judge, prothonotary, registry officer, clerk, or any other employee of the Courts Administration Service except, for proper purpose, by way of email to the address EDM-CORRESPOND@cas-satj.gc.ca
His only hope of avoiding the vexatious litigant order was, as paragraph 3 above noted, to appeal this order. So I checked the Federal Court website to see how his appeal was going and found this,
- 2016-12-28 Edmonton
Written directions received from the Court: Roger Lafrenière, Esq., Prothonotary dated 28-DEC-2016 directing that "The motion in writing on behalf of the Plaintiff, Allen Boisjoli Holdings¿, dated December 22, 2016 for "extra time so as the Plaintiff may properly present evidence to Appeal the Order presented by Prothonotary Roger R. Lafreniere, dated November 15, 2016" shall be rejected for filing for the following reasons. First, the motion material does not comply with Rule 364 of the Federal Courts Rules, which creates an obligation to prepare an applicant's motion record for all motions. Second, the motion material does not include any affidavit evidence, as required by Rule 36, or any written representations in the form or content prescribed by Rule 70. Absent affidavit material one would expect at least adequate written representations in order to explain where to find facts in the Court's record: Greens At Tam O'Shanter Inc. v. Canada 1999 CanLII 7512 (FC), 163 F.T.R. 311. Third, the notice of motion is not signed by a solicitor or anyone entitled to sign on behalf of a trust, as required by Rule 66(3)." placed on file on 28-DEC-2016 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)
So yet another door slammed in Allen's face.
Allen Boisjoli Holdings v. Papadoptu, 2016 FC 1260http://canlii.ca/t/gvx8j