_______________________________________________________

Memorandum of Decision

of the

Associate Chief Justice

J.D. Rooke

_______________________________________________________

I. Introduction

[1] On September 9, 2018, in a decision reported as Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 652 (Potvin #1), I reviewed the litigation activities of Alfred Gerald Potvin [Mr. Potvin], also known as Fred Gerald Potvin, which included three actions in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and three lawsuits in Federal Court.

[2] That litigation illustrated that Mr. Potvin employs a range of legally false pseudolaw concepts, commonly referred to as Organized Pseudolegal Commerical Arguments or “OPCA”: Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, 543 AR 215. OPCA ideas sound like law and use legal terminology and references, but are universally rejected by Canadian courts. Pseudolaw is sold to litigants by conman “gurus” who promise extraordinary but false benefits to their customers.

[3] Certain of Mr. Potvin’s OPCA concepts were so notoriously false that simply employing these ideas creates a presumption that a litigant acts in bad faith and for ulterior purposes, which authorizes courts to take pre-emptive steps to manage this abusive litigation: Potvin #1, at paras 68-75, 83-92, 134. In addition, Mr. Potvin’s litigation included other classes of litigation misconduct which are characteristic of abusive litigants, (Chutskoff v Bonora, 2014 ABQB 389 at para 92, 590 AR 288, aff’d 2014 ABCA 444, 588 AR 303; Potvin #1, at paras 57-58), including:

1. engaging in hopeless, abusive litigation (Potvin #1, at para 136);

2. conducting collateral attacks on concluded foreclosure proceedings (Potvin #1, at para 137);

3. seeking disproportionate, impossible remedies, including that each use of his name creates a legal claim for $1 million in intellectual property infringement penalties (Potvin #1, at para 138);

4 scandalous and conspiratorial allegations against court decision makers (Potvin #1, at para 139); and

5. globally, his litigation exhibits an expanding pattern, where he raises new issues and targets new parties, including judicial decision-makers who found against Mr. Potvin (Potvin #1, at para 140).

[4] Mr. Potvin’s history of abusing court processes potentially warranted that he be made subject to court access restrictions by what is sometimes called a “vexatious litigant order”. Therefore, in Potvin #1, I provided a detailed review of the relevant law and principles in Alberta for when the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench may imposes court access restrictions (Potvin #1, at paras 55-62), and detailed what I identified as Mr. Potvin’s litigation misconduct (Potvin #1, at paras 63-140). I then concluded at paras 142-144 by imposing interim court access restrictions, and instructed that Mr. Potvin had until September 24, 2018 to file written submissions and evidence:

1. as to whether he should be subject to court access restrictions in Alberta Courts, and

2. if so, what form those court access restrictions should take.

[5] That deadline has passed. Mr. Potvin did not respond. I therefore now proceed to evaluate whether Mr. Potvin’s anticipated litigation misconduct warrants imposition of court access restrictions.

II. Court Access Restrictions

[6] The authority and procedure used by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to impose court access restrictions under its inherent jurisdiction is now well established: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 at paras 14-25, 273 ACWS (3d) 533, leave denied 2017 ABCA 63, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37624 (2 November 2017), more generally Potvin #1 at paras 55-62.

[7] In summary:

1. the requirement for court access restrictions is a broad-based inquiry into the abusive litigant, and his or her activities in and outside the court, and in any public disputes (Potvin #1, at para 59);

2. court access restrictions may be warranted where a litigant exhibits any “indicia” of abusive litigation (Chutskoff v Bonora, at para 92, and successor litigation (Potvin #1, at para 58));

3. court access restrictions are favoured where a litigant exhibits multiple indicia of abusive litigation (Chutskoff v Bonora, at paras 131-132; Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 at para 104, 29 Alta LR (6th) 334);

4. court access restrictions are imposed on a prospective, rather than punitive basis; the critical question is what forms of litigation abuse are anticipated (Hok v Alberta, at para 36; Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 at para 45; Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors (No 2), [2003] EWCA Civ 1113 (UK CA)); and

5. an abusive litigant’s intentions, motivation, political ideology and behavioral pathology are potentially highly relevant to the scope of plausible future litigation abuse (1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 548 at paras 42-79, 283 ACWS (3d) 55).

[8] This last factor is very important to my evaluation of Mr. Potvin and his litigation misconduct. The broad spectrum of abuse of court processes identified in Potvin #1 mandates court intervention, particularly since Mr. Potvin’s OPCA litigation strategies included motifs which no legitimate litigant may advance in good faith. In other words, I conclude, and Mr. Potvin provided no explanation otherwise, that he has no excuse for his abusive litigation.

[9] On that basis, I conclude Mr. Potvin should be prohibited from initiating any litigation in Alberta Courts, except where he is granted leave to do so.

[10] But there is a further factor. OPCA litigation may be broadly divided into court activities with an “offensive” vs “defensive” orientation. The latter is where an OPCA litigant is trying to avoid some sanction or unfavourable result. Although that is always an abuse of the court and opposing litigants, “defensive” OPCA actions can be the product of ill-advised and desperate persons adopting bad litigation strategies. In that sense they are victims, for example: Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee, 2015 ABQB 700 at para 84, 7 Admin LR (6th) 321; Robert John: of the familymacmillan v Johannson, 2017 BCSC 1069 at para 15, 2017 DTC 5084.

[11] However, others OPCA litigants are motivated by a kind of self-destructive extremist political ideology that is reinforced in highly introspective, introverted community ‘echo chambers’: Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 at para 92, aff’d 2018 ABCA 14.

[12] Justice Thomas in 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee) observed that, while all OPCA concepts are illegal and abusive, some OPCA litigants are motivated by toxic anti-government and anti-institutional beliefs (paras 72-73):

Judicial and legal academic authorities uniformly identify OPCA narratives and their associated pseudolegal concepts as resting on and building from a foundation of paranoid and conspiratorial anti-government and anti-institutional political and social belief. These individuals are sometimes called ‘litigation terrorists’ for this reason. They may act for personal benefit, but they also do so with the belief they are justified and act lawfully when they injure others and disrupt court processes. Persons who advance OPCA litigation to harm others have no place in Canada’s courts. ... Their next target can be anyone who crosses their path - government officials or organizations, peace officers, lawyers, judges, business employees - and who then offends the OPCA litigant’s skewed perspectives.

These individuals believe they have a right to attack others via the courts, they like the idea of doing that, and they view their litigation targets as bad actors who deserve punishment. ...

[13] Mr. Potvin belongs to this category. He has from the start attempted to counterattack against his mortgage lender, demanding millions of dollars for the purported breach of (imaginary) common law copyright in his name (Potvin #1, at paras 16-17), launching a retaliatory counterattack lawsuit (Potvin #1, at paras 38-40), and then expanding his activities to the Federal Court, filing meritless and abusive lawsuits against a Court Justice, Masters, police, and civil enforcement agencies (Potvin #1, at paras 41-53). That pattern continues at present.

[14] In 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), at para 74, Justice Thomas concluded that “offensive” OPCA litigation is “... a basis for immediate court intervention to prevent that from recurring. ...”. I agree, and this distinction has been subsequently applied in other Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench cases, including: Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555 at paras 77-78, 83; Rothweiler v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288 at paras 39-41, 46, result confirmed 2018 ABQB 399; d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 ABQB 438 at paras 5-7, 34; and Alberta Treasury Branches v Hawrysh, 2018 ABQB 618 at para 29.

[15] Court access restrictions should be proportionate to anticipated abuse of court processes: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 at para 34; Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors (No 2). Here, I conclude Mr. Potvin’s litigation misconduct merits imposition of additional court access restrictions.

[16] First, courts have required that an abusive litigant must submit any future leave applications via counsel. Here, there are two bases for that step:

1. an established pattern of meritless and persistent filings, or improper communications with the courts (Boe v Boe, 2014 BCCA 208, 356 BCAC 217, leave to appeal to SCC denied, 36048 (26 February 2015); Re Boisjoli; Onischuk v Edmonton (City), 2017 ABQB 647; Onischuk v Edmonton (City); Re Onischuk, 2017 ABQB 659; Re Gauthier; Templanza v Ford, 2018 ABQB 168, 69 Alta LR (6th) 110; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board, 2018 ABQB 220; Hoessmann v Aldergrove Credit Union, 2018 BCCA 218; McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 677; Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque, 2018 ABQB 821); and

2. attempts to enforce fictional OPCA claims on a target (Re Boisjoli; Re Gauthier).

[17] Second, I extend this requirement for lawyer representation, to include laying of private Criminal Code, ss 504, 507 informations in provincial court: Lee v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ABQB 464 at paras 160-164; Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque, at para 204; Hill v Bundon, 2018 ABQB 506; McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 493 at para 30, confirmed 2018 ABQB 677 at para 37. This prohibition is warranted in two ways. First, Mr. Potvin has an established pattern of misusing court processes in retaliation against persons he finds objectionable. Second, Mr. Potvin is affiliated with the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption [CERI], an OPCA group which purports that its members are outside Canadian law because of their King James Bible literalist beliefs: Meads v Meads, at paras 134-139, 183-188; Potvin #1, at paras 102-134. CERI excuses, such as Mr. Potvin’s (purported) preoccupation with the CERI nercrophilic necromantic “Strawman”, never work. In fact, Mr. Potvin’s guru, “minister” Edward Robin Jay Belanger, has spent the past several months in the Edmonton Remand Centre, and on September 20, 2018 was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while disqualified and sentenced to 30 days incarceration, despite “minister” Belanger’s complaints that him being required to have a motor vehicle licence would “intimidate” his ability to practice his faith, since he is no respecter of persons: R v Belanger (20 September 2018), Edmonton 180222747P1 (Alta PC). Perhaps Mr. Potvin should ask his teacher for a refund.

[18] One of the CERI’s preferred tactics is to file legally false criminal informations which usually complain that some government actor has “intimidated” their beliefs in the King James Bible, in breach of Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 176 and/or 423: Meads v Meads, at para 139. On this basis, I conclude it is plausible that Mr. Potvin will adopt the same strategy, warranting the additional step of screening him from abusing persons with meritless criminal complaints.

[19] I therefore, on my own motion, and under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, order effective immediately that:

1. Alfred Gerald Potvin is a vexatious litigant, and is prohibited from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing, any appeal, action, application, or proceeding:

(i) in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, and

(ii) on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate,

without an order for leave of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted.

2. Alfred Gerald Potvin must describe himself, in any application for leave or document to which this Order applies, as “Alfred Gerald Potvin”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym.

3. Any application for leave by Alfred Gerald Potvin will only be accepted if Alfred Gerald Potvin is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Alfred Gerald Potvin in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8.

4. Subject to paragraph 14 hereof, and otherwise in accord with the Court of Appeal’s normal process, to commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alfred Gerald Potvin must apply to a single appeal judge for leave to commence or continue the proceeding, and

(i) The application for leave must be made in writing by sending a Letter addressed to the Case Management Officer explaining why the new proceedings or the continuance of an existing proceedings is justified.

(ii) The Letter shall not exceed five double-spaced pages.

(iii) The Letter is to contain no attachments other than, for a new proceeding, the proposed notice of appeal, application or other proceeding.

(iv) If the single appeal judge requires further information, he or she can request it.

(v) The single appeal judge can respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing, or hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded.

(vi) If the single appeal judge grants Alfred Gerald Potvin leave to commence an appeal, Alfred Gerald Potvin may be required to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 14.5(1)(j). An application for permission to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Alberta Rules of Court and must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of this Order restricting Alfred Gerald Potvin’s access to the Alberta Court of Appeal;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, application, or proceeding that Alfred Gerald Potvin proposes to file;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed appeal, application, or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that it is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it; and

d) indicating whether Alfred Gerald Potvin has ever sued some or all of the respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars.

5. Subject to paragraph 14 hereof, to commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench or the Provincial Court of Alberta, Alfred Gerald Potvin shall submit an application to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, respectively, or his or her designate:

(i) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person.

(ii) Any application shall be made in writing.

(iii) Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order restricting Alfred Gerald Potvin’s access to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Provincial Court of Alberta;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Alfred Gerald Potvin proposes to issue or file or continue;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

d) indicating whether Alfred Gerald Potvin has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars;

e) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and

f) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding.

(iv) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may:

a) give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if he or she so chooses, to:

(1) the potentially involved parties;

(2) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and

(3) the Attorney Generals of Alberta and Canada;

b) respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and

c) decide the application in open Court where it shall be recorded.

6. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs, and proof of payment of all prior cost awards.

7. An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly.

8. An application to vary or set aside this Order must be made on notice to any person as directed by the Court.

9. Alfred Gerald Potvin is prohibited from:

(i) providing legal advice, preparing documents intended to be filed in court for any person other than himself, and filing or otherwise communicating with any Alberta court, except on his own behalf; and

(ii) acting as an agent, next friend, McKenzie Friend (from McKenzie v McKenzie, [1970] 3 All ER 1034 (UK CA) and Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, ss 2.22-2.23), or any other form of representation in court proceedings,

before the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal.

10. The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from Alfred Gerald Potvin, unless:

(i) Alfred Gerald Potvin is a named party in the action in question, and

(ii) if the documents and other materials are intended to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding, Alfred Gerald Potvin has been granted leave pursuant to this Order to take that step by the Court.

11 No information shall be received by a Justice from Alfred Gerald Potvin per Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 504, 507.1 unless Alfred Gerald Potvin is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Alfred Gerald Potvin in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8.

12. All fee waivers granted to Alfred Gerald Potvin by the Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal are revoked.

13. The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse any fee waiver application by Alfred Gerald Potvin unless Alfred Gerald Potvin has a court order which authorizes same.

14. The Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta, or his or her designate, may, on his or her own authority, vary the terms of this Order in relation to the requirement, procedure or any preconditions to obtain leave to initiate or continue litigation in their respective Courts.

15. The approval of Alfred Gerald Potvin as to the form and content of this Order is not required.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 5th day of October 2018.

J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances:

None