I'd love to tell you what this particular lawsuit was about but it makes very little sense to me. It seems that he is trying to regain ownership of all Indian lands in B.C. Good luck with that.
And I realize that religion is a banned topic on here, but when God himself is suing Canada, well, it's worth mentioning.
What is noteworthy is Sterritt's long history of frivolous court actions and the many God-related names he gives himself. He's been at it since the 90s!
You would think that after 20 years of failure that Sterritt might start questioning whether he is the omnipotent personification of God that he claims to be. In particular, I wonder how God can be bound by the vexatious litigant order that the court ended up making.Counsel for the defendant Province has provided the following summary of Mr. Sterritt’s litigation history:
(a) His first apparent claim to divine and aboriginal title and rights before Canadian courts dates back to a claim in Federal Court from 1995. In the 1995 proceeding, aside from claiming that he was the “un‑contradicted Messiah” and the owner of the “radical root title in all the country of CANADA,” Mr. Sterritt also claimed damages in the amount of $250,000 in relation to a roe on kelp operation which he was allegedly deprived of. In the 1995 proceeding, the Federal Court noted that Mr. Sterritt had no authority to sue “on behalf of all INDIANS” as he had purported to do: Sterritt v. Canada,  F.C.J. No. 1102.
(b) In 1996 Mr. Sterritt applied to the Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC),  3 S.C.R. 1010 to intervene as “GOD, in the person of James Russell Sterritt, on behalf of the KINGDOM OF GOD and the CROWN OF CHRIST”. Mr. Justice Major dismissed Mr. Sterritt's application for intervenor status.
(c) On September 21, 2000, Judge Saunderson of the Provincial Court of B.C. dismissed a claim by Mr. Sterritt and ordered that he was not to commence any action in any registry of the Provincial Court of British Columbia against any person without first obtaining leave of the court: God, in the name of James Sterritt aka James Russell Sterritt v. Rockwell Developments Ltd., Campbell River, File C4480 dated September 21, 2000.
(d) In 2002 Mr. Sterritt applied for a declaration of indigent status and waiver of filing fees in relation to a proposed claim against the Corporation of the City of Prince Rupert, the Mayor and others, including a claim in the nature of aboriginal title to land: Sterritt v. Prince Rupert (City), 2002 BCSC 429 (CanLII). Justice Halfyard dismissed the application finding that the proposed statement of claim disclosed no reasonable claim and that certain portions thereof were scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
(e) In June 6, 2003, Mr. Sterritt filed a claim against one Mr. Cheema. Mr. Sterritt claimed that he was, inter alia, “Christian King & Prince,” “Indian” and “Executor of the Estate of Jesus Christ”: James Sterritt v. Karnail Singh Cheema, Provincial Court of B.C., Small Claims, Vancouver 2003-81606. The claim was later dismissed by Judge Tweedale on March 2, 2004, who also ordered that Mr. Sterritt was not to bring any further actions in Provincial Court without prior leave of the court.
(f) On July 16, 2003, Mr. Sterritt filed a claim against an officer of the Vancouver Police Department (the “VPD Claim”) in which he also claimed the right as “King and Indian”: James Sterritt v. Vancouver City Police Officer, Provincial Court of B.C., Small Claims, Vancouver Action 2003-82341. On October 5, 2004, he applied to amend the style of cause to have his name replaced with “Christ James Sterritt” given that his right of action was “as the ‘Christ’, owner of the absolute right in the entire Province of British Columbia - in capacity of ‘God’ the King.”
(g) On February 8, 2006, Mr. Sterritt was the subject of a recognizance under section 810 of the Criminal Code imposed by Judge Brecknell. On February 10, 2006, Mr. Sterritt argued unsuccessfully before Judge Brecknell that the court did not have jurisdiction to try him for uttering threats on the grounds that he was “the Christ”, having, therefore, “imperial power”, “temporal power” and “infinite power” which was higher than the authority and power of the court. Mr. Sterritt’s claims of aboriginal rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], were also dismissed: R. v. Sterritt, 2006 BCPC 335 (CanLII).
(h) On May 15, 2007, Madam Justice MacKenzie dismissed a petition proceeding brought by Mr. Sterritt in relation to a residential tenancy dispute in which he claimed to have “imperial and aboriginal titles and claims” to land. He also claimed “imperial title (as God, King, Christ and Emperor) and individual aboriginal title to the lands within the Province of British Columbia.” Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia was a respondent in that petition along with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (“HMQ Canada”) and others: Sterritt v. Canada (Attorney General), 2007 BCSC 922 (CanLII).
Justice MacKenzie, in part quoting from the reasons of Justice Halfyard in Sterritt v. Prince Rupert, supra, concluded that Mr. Sterritt “not only lack[ed] the capacity to advance a claim of aboriginal title, but his claims ha[d] no foundation in law”. The court also concluded that the “claim ... was procedurally defective,” as well as “scandalous, frivolous and vexatious”.
(i) On May 11, 2010, Mr. Sterritt commenced an action against two officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the “RCMP”), another two individuals, as well as the Gitanmaax Indian Band (the “Band”) and the “Minister of Indian Affairs” in Sterritt v. RCMP, Terrace Registry 17041. In that action Mr. Sterritt claimed, inter alia, that he was the “Chief of the Kitsilano Indian Band,” the “only Christian Prince of Wilpse Haaxw," as well as that the aboriginal titles “Kitsilano and Christ combine to produce the highest right of land ownership in the world, which right in the Province of British Columbia is the highest Indian title that it is possible to hold and assert as a right in Provincial land ....” On April 30, 2012, the Band brought a claim against Mr. Sterritt for trespass on reserve property and for an order enjoining Mr. Sterritt from maintaining possession of a portion of a certain campsite within the reserve land of the Band (the “Band Claim”): Gitanmaax Indian Band v. Sterritt, Smithers Registry 16313.
Mr. Sterritt has been the subject of a number of orders in the course of the claim, including an injunction ordered by Justice Crawford on May 4, 2012, and an order by Justice Warren from April 12, 2016, finding Mr. Sterritt in contempt of the previous order, for which he was sentenced to a 24-month suspended sentence in August 5, 2016. In imposing the sentence for contempt of court on Mr. Sterritt, Justice Warren noted that Mr. Sterritt had filed a “largely incomprehensible” affidavit in which he made reference to being born to “Alma (Isaiah 7:14 says an Alma shall receive and bear an El’ Em, which means SPIRITUAL PRINCE).” He also had filed, in the course of the proceedings, a “Notice of Appeal or Application for Leave to Appeal” arguing that the court had “no jurisdiction against [him] as Christian Prince, per Hudson’s Bay Company Charter 1670.”
(j) On August 8, 2016, Mr. Sterritt filed an application for leave to file five notices of claim in the Prince Rupert Registry of the Provincial Court. In those proposed notices of claim, Mr. Sterritt calls himself “Prince Kitsilano” and repeats many of the claims he has made over the years, for example, as “God” he is the paramount owner of all land in B.C.
(k) On August 30, 2016, Mr. Sterritt filed a notice to dispute a Prince Rupert bylaw ticket number 011991 (the “Bylaw Ticket Proceeding”) relating to his dogs being at large and having been seized by a bylaw officer.
(l) On October 3, 2016, Mr. Sterritt served Her Majesty the Queen, the City of Prince Rupert, Premier Christy Clark, the Prime Minister, and others, via email, a draft notice of constitutional question in relation to the Bylaw Ticket Proceeding claiming that the respondents had no jurisdiction over him, “as paramount owner of the private right belonging to all Indians by natural law, in all land in the Province of British Columbia.”
(m) An additional number of voluminous documents were served on the parties to the bylaw proceeding by Mr. Sterritt on October 11, 2016, including a notice of constitutional question in which Mr. Sterritt claimed again that he was the “paramount owner of private rights in the land, belonging to and ‘Reserved to all of the Indians’ in British Columbia” in the capacity he and others enjoyed as “Christian Prince and sole Landlord of the entire Province” (Prince Rupert Provincial Court Registry 011991.)
(n) On October 16, 2016, Mr. Sterritt wrote an email to counsel for the City of Prince Rupert claiming, inter alia, that “the Country of Canada, the Province, the City is an association of gangsters imposed on good people here robbing us” and in which he also accused counsel for the City of being “a terrorist fraud.”
(o) On October 31, 2016, Mr. Sterritt emailed counsel for Her Majesty the Queen, the City, as well as the Prime Minister, the Premier, members of the RCMP and others, claiming that he interpreted their actions “as JIHAD” and that he will “use the LAWS OF WAR TO REGAIN [his] PEACE.” In the said email he gave the addressees until November 8 to respond, which was, according to him, “the 3rd birthday of the reborn Jesus Christ to [his] family.”
(p) On November 2, 2016, Mr. Sterritt filed a “Notice of a Dispute Resolution Hearing” with the Residential Tenancy Branch in which he again claimed he was the “paramount landlord owner of Indian title” in relation to a residential unit in Prince Rupert, File No. 261800.
(q) On December 22, 2016, Mr. Sterritt filed a Notice of Claim in the Smithers Registry of the Provincial Court against, inter alia, Her Majesty the Queen, Canada, the RCMP and the Band in relation to the right of possession to land, which had been the subject of the orders by Justice Crawford and Justice Warren in the course of the Band Claim, and in addition in relation to a camper: Sterritt v. Canada, Provincial Court of B.C., Smithers Registry, Small Claims 17679.
(r) On December 28, 2016, Judge Stewart denied Mr. Sterritt leave to file four of the proposed notices of claim from August 8, 2016, and granted leave, on conditions, for Mr. Sterritt to file a claim against B.C. Ferry Corporation upon payment of the filing fee.
(s) Finally, on February 24, 2017, Judge Stewart dismissed the application brought by Mr. Sterritt in relation to the constitutionality and applicability of the bylaw in the Bylaw Ticket Proceeding.