The case involved a divorce, where the Court previously ordered the severance of divorce and property issues and directed the sale of family properties. The Defendant, a self-represented litigant, disputed the property sale Order not through legal appeal but by sending pseudolegal documents asserting his identity as separate from legal entities and threatening fines against Justice Akgungor for alleged trespasses on his rights.

After reviewing the relevant jurisprudence on “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments” (“OPCA”), a category of not-law concepts, the Court concluded that the Defendant clearly intended to interfere with the proper administration of justice with his abusive OPCA strategies. If the Defendant disagreed with the March 12, 2024 Order, and/or Akgungor’s J. conduct, the Court pointed out that there were legitimate ways to raise those issues within Canadian law and by judicial administration. Instead, the Defendant chose pseudolaw to threaten and bully his target.

Therefore, the Court instructed the Defendant to provide written submissions and/or Affidavit evidence on why he has an “adequate excuse” for what he had done. Otherwise, the Court would impose a Rule 10.49(1) penalty. Following the Court’s practice in collecting these penalties from uncooperative abusive litigants, the Court warned the Defendant that he could anticipate that the Court would Order that any Rule 10.49(1) penalties imposed would be paid to the Court from his proceeds from the Court-ordered sale of the properties.

The Court also took issue with the Alberta lawyer who notarized and formalized the OPCA documents, noting that the notarization was problematic, and that the Court had the ability to impose Rule 10.49(1) penalties against lawyers who notarize and authentic pseudolaw documents. The Court of Appeal of Alberta has repeatedly instructed that lawyers must not notarize or otherwise authenticate pseudolaw documents. However, and after reviewing the materials, the Court concluded that the pseudolaw documents authenticated themselves did not purport to reject Court authority, impose false claims, or advance the Defendant’s presumptively bad intent Strawman Theory and Three/Five Letters schemes. Given that, the Court did not believe penalties under Rule 10.49(1) for the lawyer were appropriate in the instance.

The Court went on to warn the Defendant that if he persists in abusing the Court, he would be subject to possible larger fines, and that the Court may respond with other litigation and litigant management steps, such as Costs, communications restrictions, and Court access restrictions.