So the court considered summary judgment against him;[11] Mr. Hartloff’s communication with CIBC and its solicitors has consisted of a course of conduct in which it appears Mr. Hartloff is attempting to divest himself of his responsibilities for his debts by referring to discredited pseudolegal arguments. He sent a document entitled “Claim of Truth” to CIBC on March 11, 2015 in which he purports to impose an obligation on CIBC to answer seven nonsensical arguments he raises within 30 days or there will be no debt owing by him to CIBC. CIBC’s solicitors sent a letter to Mr. Hartloff referring him to Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 543 AR 215 [Meads], in an attempt to demonstrate to Mr. Hartloff that his tactics and arguments had no hope of succeeding.
[12] On May 19, 2015, May 25, 2015, May 28, 2015, June 23, 2015, July 15, 2015 and July 22, 2015, Mr. Hartloff sent correspondence to CIBC’s solicitors by email and letter. This correspondence again raised discredited pseudolegal arguments and, amongst other things, claimed to charge CIBC $300.00 for every telephone call they had made to him, demanded an answer to his Claim of Truth, claimed CIBC was now in default to him and made veiled threats.
Harsh, very harsh. Just the brutal comment that if you borow money you are expected to repay it. What about his defense, isn't that enough?[17] The facts of this matter are uncontroverted and the amount claimed is readily quantifiable. This is the type of matter that is very well suited to the granting of summary judgment under Rule 7-5(1)(a) without the need to resort to the court’s expanded powers under Rule 7-5(2)(b).
[18] The court finds there is no genuine issue for trial in this matter. Mr. Hartloff entered into three different types of contractual arrangements with CIBC with regard to the Visa account, the overdraft on the deposit account and the personal loan. He is contractually obligated to pay the amounts claimed by CIBC, he has not done so and no valid defence to CIBC’s claim has been raised.
[19] Mr. Hartloff is well aware of the existence of the debts but he appears to believe he can avoid his responsibility to pay those debts by referring to pseudolegal theories that have been completely rejected by every court they have ever been raised in. As noted above, CIBC’s solicitors attempted to persuade Mr. Hartloff that the arguments he was raising could not succeed and referred him specifically to Meads. This was all to no avail. In his June 23, 2015 email to CIBC’s solicitors, Mr. Hartloff referred to Meads as “...a 200 page decision of treasonous diatribe...”
[20] Unfortunately, it appears Mr. Hartloff has been deceived into believing the legal system that applies to all residents of Canada does not apply to him. He is wrong in his belief that signing his name in a special way, referencing the Magna Carta or making ludicrous demands will somehow relieve him of his obligation to pay his debts. He obtained the money from CIBC and he spent it. He is now required to pay it back.
Apparently not. So the court hit him with higher-level costs;[24] There is no genuine issue for trial with regard to Mr. Hartloff’s counter-claim. The counter-claim is based solely on a claim that CIBC should pay Mr. Hartloff the amount it advanced to him under the personal loan and the Visa account. There are no grounds for a claim that CIBC should gift a further amount to Mr. Hartloff equal to the amount he owes them. The counter-claim cannot possibly succeed. Mr. Hartloff’s counter-claim is dismissed in its entirety.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hartloff, 2016 SKQB 155[33] On the basis of the contractual terms and the authorities set out above regarding the awarding of solicitor and client costs, the court finds it appropriate to order solicitor and client costs in this matter.
[34] Mr. Hartloff contractually agreed to pay CIBC’s legal costs in the event of default for each of the two largest debts. These two debts represent over 98% of CIBC’s claim. He then engaged in frivolous, unreasonable and outrageous conduct that increased the costs and complexity of a matter in which he had no defence. Despite the complete lack of any legal basis to defend against CIBC’s claim, he filed a statement of defence and counter-claim which was devoid of any merit. This required CIBC to apply for summary judgment.
[35] Parties are entitled to make claims and defend claims and are not subject to solicitor and client costs simply because the claim or defence is unsuccessful. A meritless claim or defence on its own is not sufficient to ground a claim for solicitor and client costs, but the nature of the defence, counter-claim and communication from Mr. Hartloff in contemplation of litigation and during the litigation is frivolous, unreasonable and outrageous. When a party engages in pursuing a nonsensical claim or defence in the manner engaged in by Mr. Hartloff, even after he has been provided with a clear statement of the law as found in Meads, solicitor and client costs are appropriate. CIBC should not have to be responsible for the expenses caused by Mr. Hartloff’s choice to engage in litigation in such a manner.
[36] The court awards solicitor and client costs to CIBC as a result of the combination of the contractual terms and Mr. Hartloff’s conduct in this litigation.
Conclusion
As a result of all of the above, the court grants summary judgment as follows:
(a) CIBC is awarded judgment against Mr. Hartloff in the amount of $29,248.39.
(b) Mr. Hartloff’s counter-claim is dismissed in its entirety.
(c) CIBC is awarded costs from Mr. Hartloff throughout each step taken in this entire action on a solicitor and client basis, to be assessed.
http://canlii.ca/t/grqjc
I don't see any more litigation activities by Hartloff, but he's clearly been at this game for awhile.
His Google+ website;
https://plus.google.com/108705762316917336526/posts
Where his buddy is Charles Norman Holmes;
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9683
He's also friends with the Parakeet and Eldon Warman! And here's his magic CERI paperwork;
http://www.allcreatorsgifts.org/forumarc/125.html
Pure Belanger. However I don't see a date.
And he's a charity scammer;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... g-1.550962
http://www.publications.gov.sk.ca/details.cfm?p=56841
