Associate Chief Justice Rooke considered whether elevated Costs were appropriate after striking an Action that Sandra Anderson (“Anderson”) initiated against 11 individuals. Anderson was an organized pseudolegal commercial argument (“OPCA”) litigant and horse smuggler. On two separate occasions in 2019, the Canada Border Service Agency (“CBSA”) seized horses that Anderson attempted to smuggle into Canada.

In response to horse smuggling fines, Anderson commenced an Action against CBSA staff and employees as well as a prosecutor with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Associate Chief Justice Rooke ruled the claim to be an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (“AVAP”), and ordered, pursuant to Civil Practice Note No 7, that Anderson had 14 days to provide the Court with written submissions to “show cause” as to why the AVAP should not be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68 (“Anderson #1”).

The Court then struck the Action when Anderson failed to provide written submissions (“Anderson #2”). Rooke A.C.J. noted that Anderson had emailed the Court a document titled “NOTICE: Trespass, Liability and Fee Schedule” along with several “Exhibits” that purported to fine Associate Chief Justice Rooke and counsel for the Defendants 25 ounces of gold (the “Notice”). The Court determined that the Notice was a further abuse of the Court and a second basis to strike the Action.

In Anderson #2, Associate Chief Justice Rooke requested that Anderson provide written submissions on why she should not be subject to an elevated Costs Award. Anderson responded by sending the Court an email that stated, “Notice to agent is notice to principal” and “Notice to principal is notice to agent”. Attached to the email were copies of the Decisions in Anderson #1 and Anderson #2 annotated with a Sharpie pen to include the date and the phrases “No Trespass”, “Contract declined”, and “All rights reserved”.

Turning to Costs, Rooke A.C.J. noted that successful litigants are presumptively due Schedule C Costs, unless the Court orders otherwise pursuant to Rule 10.29(1). Associate Chief Justice Rooke also noted that the Court has broad authority to vary a Costs award and that OPCA litigation demands elevated Costs consequences. The Court determined that Anderson was still attempting to use pseudolaw to evade the consequences of her abusive and illegal activity. The Court determined that Anderson’s litigation misconduct warranted an elevated Costs Award of $2,500 per Defendant to be paid forthwith. Anderson’s approval of the Order was not required pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).