The Federal Court of Canada website said that a judgment had been issued on Wally's hearing. Since it has not been released I went down to the Federal court registry today and got a copy. It was $7.20 worth of sadness and tragedy. Forget money, forget the legal argy-bargy, all that Wally was fighting for, all that he really wanted, was happiness!
http://www.mediafire.com/view/kzqeq7mqv ... Appeal.pdf33. The applicant has a right to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts to do. The applicant, however, has chosen not to gain a living by choosing to work. Instead, the applicant has chosen to pursue happiness in life. In pursuing happiness the applicant is not gaining his living by work yet he remains with the right to enjoy an adequate standard of living.
Wally is really just everyman, dreaming the same dream we all have, happiness. Wally had spent some time, no matter how briefly, as a Canada Revenue Agency auditor. After that searing nightmarish experience wasn't he entitled to a little happiness? I spent years as a CRA auditor and I understand his pain! However happiness can't be attained on a bargain budget and Wally needed $100,000,000 to fund the lifestyle that would allow him to realize his dream. But one other thing that Wally wanted was the right to be a deadbeat. He didn't want to work so it was the government's duty to step up to bat and subsidize the "adequate" lifestyle that would give him his nirvana;
It wasn't as if this would cost the government anything. All they had to do was pay him the hundred million they already owed him;20. The applicant is seeking to exercise, inter alia, his fundamental right to an adequate living. The applicant claims that this right to enjoy a living has been restricted, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.
22. The applicant claims that the right to work in order to gain a living was forced upon the applicant contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. [ ... ]
24. The applicant is under no obligation to exercise the right to work. In fact, the applicant claims that this right does not produce an obligation in law, a right never produces an obligation but a choice. [ ... ]
25. The applicant claims that the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen, as a state party member is under obligation, as a signatory to the international covenants, to recognize the right to work.
26. There is a right to work that an individual can choose to exercise. As with any right, it can be used or not. The right to work includes (a cannon of construction holding that to express or include one thing, implies the exclusion of the other, or of the alternative) the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work . The right to work then, is for the sole purpose of gaining the applicant's living. This right extends to everyone (Human Being) to permit one the opportunity (choice or opportunity) to gain his or her living by work.
28. The applicant claims that this right to work and earn, gain or pursue a living is something that must freely be chosen or accepted. This is the principle of fundamental justice concerning the right to work.
30. The applicant claims that in order to have and enjoy an adequate standard ofliving, the applicant tried to exercise his fundamental right to an adequate living and was denied by the defendant. [ ... ]
32. The applicant has invoked his right not to work,[ ... ]
33. The applicant has a right to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts to do. The applicant, however, has chosen not to gain a living by choosing to work. Instead, the applicant has chosen to pursue happiness in life. In pursuing happiness the applicant is not gaining his living by work yet he remains with the right to enjoy an adequate standard of living [ ... ]
34. The applicant claims that this right is being restricted by the defendant contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.
35. Another right that is being restricted, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice is the right of the applicant to contribute (or not) to the economic, social and cultural development of the defendant.
13. In the case of Complainant, Wally Dove, the value of this Bond is more or less, $522,800,000.00 and the interest earned to date is more or less, $475,800,000.00. Wally Dove is also entitled to triple damages of the amount of actual damages sustained by him and the costs of the action including reasonable attorneys' fees, if applicable.
Bond? Bond? What bond? Wally explained it this way;
Why the old tried and true OPCA birth bond of course. Exactly the same bond that Bernie Yankson and Charles Norman Holmes went to court to force the government to cough up. And how could the government possibly refute the force of this argument?57. The applicant claims there has been a security issued to him when he was a child, shortly after his birth, and this security represents the obligation (debt) that the defendant and her agents are under to allow the applicant, a Human Being, to be secure from fear and want and to allow him to enjoy an adequate standard of living.
59. The applicant claims that the defendant, in right of Canada, through her executive powers became a signatory to the international Covenants, and thereby became obligated and accountable to respect and ensure all the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the covenants
62. The applicant claims that a security is in registered form if it bears a statement upon it that it is in registered form. If one looks upon the documentation given or received from the government (Registrar General) after the applicant (Human Being) was born, it is designated a registration of live birth (a.k.a., birth registration document). Written upon this instrument are terms such as Registration number, Registration date, etc., all indications that the instrument is registered, meaning it is in registered form.
63. The applicant claims that the office ofthe Registrar General from whom he obtained a certified copy of the birth registration document (security), is also an agent of the defendant and operating on Her behalf.
65. The applicant claims his security is proof of the debt obligation that the defendant owes to the applicant.
66. This obligation, inter alia, is to ensure the applicant (Human Being) enjoys an adequate standard ofliving including food, clothing and housing and to the continued improvement of those living conditions [ ... ]
Even a Notice of Understanding67. This security is issued to the natural person (i.e. The Human Being) and creates or represents the obligation (debt) owing to the applicant by the defendant.
72. The applicant claims that the registration of live birth is an instrument that proves the birth of a child (human being). The applicant accepts that a child in law, an infant, is a minor and not capable of handling its own financial and other affairs and must be looked after (governed by a trustee).
73. The applicant respectfully submits that it is, inter alia, the Bank Act that creates a Trust because the bank may treat a person as a registered security holder who is entitled to exercise all the rights of the security holder if this person presents to the bank a certain piece of evidence.
75. The applicant claims that the defendant (Queen in Council) is declaring that the applicant is indeed a minor and unable to operate the entitlements to the security of the person. The Ministers, agents of the defendant, are the persons who are currently exercising the rights to the applicant's security.
But evil perfidy awaited Wally's entirely fair and reasonable request;80. The applicant further claims that he has severed the Constructive Registered Holder's claimed rights over his security via the Notice of Understanding and Claim of Recognition sent to the holder ofthe defendant's Executive powers, the Governor General on March 31, 2015 and received by him on April8, 2015.
81. The applicant claims that the Receiver General failed to allow the applicant to operate upon his security by refusing to comply with the applicant's Instruction for Payment.
82. The applicant sent a request for funds to be released in accordance with his instructions, solely for the purpose of fulfilling his right to an adequate standard ofliving, even though, since the money comes from the applicant's security (from the Consolidated Revenue Fund), the defendant's agents have absolutely no right to operate upon his security any longer which means the request for funds did not even have to be justified in anyway.
So here is what Wally asked for to make things whole again;84. The Receiver General did not fulfill its obligations as indicated in this claim. In fact, the Receiver General did not even respond to the applicant.
So, to put it in layman's terms, this is what Wally wanted the Federal Court of Canada to award him;88. The applicant claims that the Receiver General is subject to the Constitution Act of Canada and has not fulfilled his duty by reconciling the applicant's claims and releasing the funds as instructed.
The applicant therefore claims as follows:
a) An Order that the defendant honour Her obligations to the applicant, inter alia, as outlined in
Article 7 of Schedule B of the Constitution Act, 1982.
b) An Order that the defendant arrange for the return of care and control of the applicant's
security to him and it is the applicant, not the Constructive Registered Holder, who is "entitled to
vote, to receive notices, to receive any interest, dividend or other payment in respect of tile
. " [ ] security ....
c) An Order that the defendant arrange for the transfer of care and control over the applicant's
Patrimony, the remaining portion of the Consolidated Revenue Fund that represents the "interest,
dividend or other payment in respect of the (applicant's) security".
d) An Order that the defendant pay damages to the applicant in the amount of$50,000,000.00.
e) An Order that the defendant pay the applicant $50,000,000.00 in punitive damages.
f) An Order to cease and desist hindering the applicant in his expression and operation of his
individual rights and fundamental freedoms by allowing the applicant to use Promissory Notes
without the interference of any representative of the defendant's Bank OR the defendant.
g) An order that the defendant safeguard the applicant's rights, inter alia, as expressed in Article
7 of the Charter, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person". The applicant
a Human Being, has the right to the security of his person and no one can deprive him of this
And (SPOILER ALERT) this what he got;
Things started out well for Wally with the judge saying what a great straight-up kind of guy he was and indicated some sympathy for him;
And then the court crapped on him; At the hearing ofthe present Motion, Mr. Dove spoke well; he was courteous and respectful. To my observation Mr. Dove presented an honest commitment to, and belief in, the following statement, upon which the Statements of Claim are based:
I disagree with the decision in one area; costs. I find that the Plaintiffs' attempt to seek access to justice in this Court must be rejected because their Statements of Claim have no reasonable prospect of success. As evidenced by the "Bill in Equity", the Plaintiffs have developed a belief unknown to the laws of Canada, upon which their Statements of Claim are based
 No cause of action arises from a belief that, by birth in Canada, a person acquires a proprietary interest in the resources of the country, under the wrongful control of Her Majesty the Queen, that founds a monetary claim which is calculable based on that person's date of birth.  As a result, pursuant to Rule 221(1)(a) of the Rules, I order that the Statements of Claim in each of the actions in the present Consolidated Action, be struck out, without leave to amend.
What "present unique circumstances"? I don't see any and the judge didn't bother to explain. There is nothing new in this case; the birth bond issue has been beaten to death by the courts. I suppose it probably doesn't matter what costs were awarded. Given Wally's passionate dedication to his constitutional right not to work I can't see him paying off any amount of costs anytime soon. Maybe the government can take it out of his birth bond.IV. Costs
 As the successful party, I accept Counsel for the Respondent's request that costs of the present Motion be ordered to be paid by the Plaintiffs jointly.
 In preliminary written argument dated September 15, 2015, Counsel for the Respondent argued for an elevated cost award to discourage "this type of abusive litigation and to indemnify the Defendant for her legal costs". Given that I have found that the Plaintiffs have brought the present Consolidated Action on the basis of an honest belief, and similar claims have not been determined by this Court, I have no reason to conclude that the present litigation is an abuse of process.
 However, I would caution that the present minimal costs award is being made strictly on the basis of the present unique circumstances.
I award costs in favour of the Respondent, to be payable by the Plaintiffs jointly, in the lump sum of $2,000.00.
In a prior posting I'd said
Well the court cleared at least that up for me.However I wish the court would make its mind up if Wally sent a Bill of Equity or a Bill in Equity. Not that it really matters; I have no idea what either is supposed to be.
- 2015-11-16 Toronto Bill in Equity received on 16-NOV-2015- 2015-11-17 Toronto Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell dated 16-NOV-2015 directing that Accept the Bill of Equity submitted by the Plaintiff. placed on file on 17-NOV-2015
Bill in Equity
For purposes of this Instrument, CLAIM means- A claim is a challenge of the ownership of a thing which a man has not in possession and is wrongfully withheld by another. Plowd. 359; Wee i Dall.444; 12 S. & R. 179. _1856 Bouvier's Law Dictionary The petition of Wally Dove, a private person, of Minden, in Hailiburton County, Ontario, individually, and as next friend of Jason Dove, Glenn Bursey and Michael Bursey, respectfully represents:
1. That the Complainants grant In Personam jurisdiction to this Honourable Court under the Rules of Equity.
2. That Wally Dove is the father of Jason Dove and friend of Glenn Bursey who is the father of Michael Bursey, all of whom live in the geographical area known as Ontario.
3. That the defendant in these matters claims be the Queen of Canada and represents herself as the Legislative, Executive and Judicial power for Canada and has delegated Her powers to the Governor General of Canada, who in turn, delegates certain of those powers to others who are acting in various capacities within the defendant's agency, the government of Canada.
4. That all of the Claimants were born as human beings (see Annex "A" [statements ofbirth]) and choose to be recognized as private persons within the geographical land mass known as Canada and were born free and equal in dignity and rights with all other human beings.
5. That as free born human beings, the Claimants were with the Power of Attorney (Dominion) from their Creator over all the land, resources upon the land, resources within the land and resources underneath the sea ("assets").
6. That the defendant has created a system of commerce complete with Rules (Acts and Statutes having the force of law), a Government (delegated the power to carry on the defendant's business in Canada and govern Her subjects who have consented to be Her subjects), and Fiat Currency (money), the foundation of the system of commerce.
7. That as a part ofthe process of establishing and implementing this system of commerce, the defendant assumed control over all the land, resources upon the land, resources within the land and resources underneath the sea. All of which are the "assets" belonging to the Creator and over which the Complainants have power of Attorney (Dominion).
8. That the defendant has, and/or Her agents and/or agencies acting on Her behalf, have seized control and are managing those "assets" (a Trust) since the inception of the system of commerce and in the Complainants' case, since their respective dates of birth, or at least the date of registration of their births.
9. That the defendant has sold a significant portion of the Complainants' "assets" for money and has kept the money.
10. Further, the defendant has trespassed upon the Complainants' fundamental rights and freedoms, thus causing severe harm and damages.
11. That the Complainants claim the restoration of their property (including, inter alia, the value of their "assets" sold to date, care and control of their "assets" and future returns, as well as their individual fundamental rights and freedoms).
12. The damages are estimated to be the value of the Bond
(Statement of live birth and/or Birth Certificate).
13. In the case of Complainant, Wally Dove, the value ofhis Bond is more or less, $522,800,000.00 and the interest earned to date is more or less, $475,800,000.00. Wally Dove is also entitled to triple ·damages of the amount of actual damages sustained by him and the costs of the action including reasonable attorneys' fees, if applicable.
14. In the case of Complainant, Jason Dove, amounts and evidence to be presented on November 17, 2015.
15. In the case of Complainant, Glenn Bursey, amounts and evidence to be presented on November 17,2015.
16. In the case of Complainant, Michael Bursey, amounts and evidence to be presented on November 17, 2015.
Dated at Minden the 11th day ofNovember, 2015
Wally Dove, Human Being (Private Person)