The Plaintiff, Luc Bernard d’Abadie (“Mr. d’Abadie”), brought an Originating Application requesting, among other things, to be acquitted of charges relating to two Provincial Court docket matters and for “damages” relating to the events at issue (the “Application”). The Respondent, Alberta Justice and the Solicitor General (the “Attorney General”), applied to have the Action struck as an abuse of process under Rule 3.68. Mr. d’Abadie, in morning chambers, requested an adjournment to amend his Originating Application under Rule 3.62(1)(a). Justice Ashcroft granted the adjournment Application on the condition that the Parties provide written submissions concerning the Action.

In its written submission, the Attorney General identified multiple defects in both Mr. d’Abadie’s initial and proposed post-amendment Originating Applications. The Attorney General argued that the scope and type of defects merited the Action’s dismissal. Mr. d’Abadie’s materials included a draft “Order to Safeguard Rights” and two invoices for amounts owing to him by the Attorney General for his arrest.

Justice Ashcroft, referring to prior leading authority, found Mr. d’Abadie’s arbitrary demands for money and immunity to police and legislation within the Originating Application to be an organized pseudolegal commercial argument (“OPCA”). Justice Ashcroft emphasized that OPCAs are legal-sounding but erroneous rules that are purported to be a real and true concealed law. Ashcroft J. noted that many OPCA concepts form the basis for a finding of civil contempt.

Ashcroft J. agreed with the characterization of the lawsuit by the Attorney General and dismissed Mr. d’Abadie’s adjournment Application. Her Ladyship concluded that the Application was a collateral attack on criminal proceedings in Provincial Court, named the incorrect parties, and sought remedies not available in law. Accordingly, the Attorney General’s Application to Strike the Originating Application was granted.