The Respondent, Perreal, was a passenger in a truck driven by the Applicant, Knibb. The truck was involved in a one-vehicle collision that occurred near Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Perreal was allegedly injured. Over several months in 2012, Knibb and his lawyer received a number of documents from Perreal and an individual by the name of Mr. Dale Jacobi (“Jacobi”) relating to the vehicle collision. These documents applied pseudo-legal strategies and concepts, which were addressed by Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. In this case, the documents included one labeled “Statement of Claim with Notice and Demand”, sent by Perreal to Knibb, which gave Knibb 30 days to reject and disprove his alleged misconduct, or the document became a valid contract and true bill for the amount claimed. Rooke A.C.J. noted that such pseudo-legal strategies were “frivolous and vexatious litigation strategies that offer[ed] no beneficial effect”. Further, Justice Rooke characterized the document as a foisted unilateral agreement and noted that a person has no obligation to respond to a Statement of Claim that is not filed in a Court.

Regarding the Application for Summary Judgment, Justice Rooke heard from the Applicant and his counsel; however, neither the Respondent nor Jacobi was in attendance. Jacobi was known to the Court through his involvement with pseudo-legal strategies, his conviction in the United States for associated illegal activity, and information from Canadian authorities that considered Jacobi a threat. Based on this, Rooke A.C.J. noted that, had the Plaintiff and Mr. Jacobi attended, the status given to Mr. Jacobi by Perreal to act as his “full Power of Attorney” was irrelevant, and Mr. Jacobi was prohibited from representing Perreal by the Legal Profession Act. Additionally, because of Jacobi’s involvement, Justice Rooke granted an ex parte Application that allowed Knibb’s counsel to be identified by pseudonym and appear by telephone.

In this decision, the Court applied the well-established test for Summary Judgment, which required the Applicant to demonstrate that there was “no genuine issue of material fact requiring trial”. Rooke A.C.J. held that the lawsuit was initiated after the relevant limitation period had expired and further accepted the Applicant’s argument that the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act, CCSM c P215 eliminated Perreal’s right to sue and recover damages in tort for motor vehicle collisions in that jurisdiction. Rooke A.C.J. held that the Respondent’s Action had no prospect for success and ordered Summary Judgment.