After receiving her PhD, the Defendant failed to repay her student loans from the Government of Alberta in the amount of over sixty thousand dollars. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant had breached the loan contract, and they applied for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 7.3 on the basis that the Defendant had no real defence to the claim. Master Schulz observed that the Defendant had used some “freeman on the land” tactics, and had also informed the Plaintiff that she would not be attending the Summary Judgment Application. The Defendant had also made arguments which the Courts have referred to as “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments” (“OPCA”).

The Defendant had delivered documents to the Plaintiff which unilaterally imposed several terms and obligations on the Plaintiff. Master Schulz determined that the Defendant had no basis in law to make any of the demands or to impose any obligations on the Defendant. Further, Master Schulz held that the Defendant’s position was contractually and legally wrong, and that she had no defence to the government’s action to enforce the outstanding student loan debts. Master Schultz awarded Summary Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff.