Associate Chief Justice Nielsen considered the frequency of illegitimate “representatives” attempting to take on lawyer-like roles before the Court. In particular, he voiced concern with how these representatives invoked non-law arguments, called “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments” (“OPCA”), and did so for profit at the expense of naïve and vulnerable customers. In this case, the issue was an individual, Kevin Kumar, who operated a pseudolaw debt elimination scheme called “UnitedWeStandPeople”. Mr. Kumar has a lengthy history of abusive and illegal litigation related to real estate, and has been incarcerated for Contempt of Court.

Given his history, Mr. Kumar was prohibited from providing legal advice or acting as a representative before the Court of King’s Bench. Despite this, Mr. Kumar resurfaced to represent Defendants in two Actions commenced by a lender for credit card debt, and to commence claims against the same lender.

The Court considered the proper response to abusive litigation. First, the lawsuit may be brought to an end by Rule 3.68, or Rules 7.2-7.3 and Civil Practice Note No. 7. Alternatively, a Court Access Restriction Order may be granted against the abusive litigant. Justice Nielsen noted that ending an abusive litigation can be costly, and often does not result in an award of Costs to the abused party that is actually paid out. On the other hand, Court Access Restriction Orders are seldom granted, as a last resort, which requires a substantial waste of Court resources and harm to litigants. In this case, Justice Nielsen considered that the OPCA scheme at play was particularly problematic, as it was resulting in a large amount of litigation and was seemingly immune to typical court processes by virtue of working through new shell corporations.

Nielsen A.C.J. found that a new approach was required to deal with this emerging issue. In light of that, he ordered that $10,000 in Security for Costs should be paid by the Plaintiffs represented by Mr. Kumar, pursuant to Rule 4.22, unless written submissions on why that should not occur convinced the Court otherwise. Nielsen A.C.J. noted that a failure to pay the Security for Costs would result in the Plaintiffs’ Actions being terminated, with a potential for a Costs Award against them pursuant to Rules 10.29 and 10.49. He further dispensed with the requirement for approval of the Order, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).

Nielsen A.C.J. further required that Mr. Kumar submit an Affidavit with personal contact information, social media websites, and a true copy of his government-issued identification, along with written submissions and an Affidavit on, inter alia, why the Court should not find Mr. Kumar jointly and severally liable for any Costs Awards granted against the Plaintiffs.