Gauvreau v Lebouthillier, 2021 ABQB 108

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Gauvreau v Lebouthillier, 2021 ABQB 108 Date: 20210210 Docket: 2112 00016 Registry: Wetaskiwin Between: Gary Neil (Gauvreau), Myra Marie Gauvreau Plaintiffs - and - Diane Lebouthillier Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I.

Introduction [1] On January 19, 2021, Gary Neil Gauvreau and Myra Marie Gauvreau (the Gauvreaus) filed a Statement of Claim personally naming Diane Lebouthillier, the Canadian Minister of National Revenue (the Minister), as the Defendant. The claims advanced in the Statement of Claim are not readily summarized. I have therefore attached the body of that document as Appendix “A”.

[2] That said, what is clear from the Statement of Claim is that the Gauvreaus on a variety of bases claim that the Minister has no statutory authority to require that the Gauvreaus file income tax returns, including: 1) Queen Elizabeth II is the “Chief of the Tribe of Judah” and therefore is required to “administrate the 613 Laws and Commands set out in the Constitution Written in Heaven (Torah).” The Torah is the supreme law of Canada. 2) The 1867 British North America Act is invalid, and the authority of the Crown over Canada in 1953 was “delegated” to “pope (inc)”, which “is head of a rock.” Queen Elizabeth II and “pope (inc)” administrate the Torah. 3) The current Income Tax Act , RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp ) is invalid because its 1948 precursor was unauthorized. [3] The Gauvreaus say the Minister has been informed of these facts and that “... she and her predecessors have kept this fraud, and treason, going on for 72 years ...”, which is “bearing false witness”, “coveting my property”, and “stealing my property”.

On this basis the Gauvreaus seek the following remedies: Gary and Myra(Gauvreau) require Diane to pay back all funds extorted from me at the rate of 100% of estimated property stolen from me and Myra bearing a rate of 10% per day. Gary and Myra(Gauvreau) each claim the aforementioned amount to be $10,000,000.00.

Remedy as proscribed by law for denying the authority of Elizabeth. (Sic.) [4] Counsel for the Department of Justice Canada, who represent the Minister, on January 27, 2021 referred the Gauvreau’s Statement of Claim as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 5. I am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Wetaskiwin at the Court of Queen’s Bench.

CPN7 is reviewable on- line at https://www.albertacourts.ca/qb/areas-of-law/civil/practice-notes. [5] I have reviewed the Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim and conclude it is an AVAP because this filing has elements that Courts identify as characteristics of hopeless and abusive proceedings. On that basis, I conclude the Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim should be subject to a CPN7 show-cause document-based review under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 .

That means I have decided that the Gauvreaus must file a Written Submission setting out why the Statement of Claim should not be struck out because it is significantly deficient. II. CPN7 [6] The Court implemented CPN7 to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no chance of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

CPN7 is intended to provide litigants with a timely, proportionate, and cost-effective response: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 ( Unrau #1 ). [7] If, on initial review by the Court, an AVAP appears to have no merit, have no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue or issues that may be a basis to strike out the AVAP under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court . [8] The party who filed the AVAP is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide to the Court a Written Submission of up to a total of 10 pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the AVAP is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue.

The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of” the Justice who initiates the CPN7 process, and must also be served on the other parties to the litigation. [9] CPN7 is not to be used for “close calls”. The Court only intervenes when the defect(

s) in question are “apparent on the face of the pleading”, and the suspect pleadings are “clearer cases of abuse”: Unrau #1 at paras 22 and 24 . [10] The Court only considers restricted forms of evidence when it conducts a CPN7 review because this process has a very narrow focus and operates to examine a single document and its content: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 347 at paras 24-48 ( Ubah #2 ). There are exceptions to that rule.

For example, the Court may examine other documents in the same proceeding that are related to the suspect filing ( Ubah #2 at para 35 ), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt to litigate an issue that has already been decided or closed ( Ubah #2 at para 45 ). III. Analysis [11] The Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim exhibits a number of issues. A. God’s Law Does Not Have Supraconstitutional Status [12] The Gauvreaus’ proceeding is explicitly based on a claim that religious law, either the Torah, and/or the Vulgate Bible, are the supreme law of Canada.

Canadian courts have consistently rejected that the Bible, or some other form of God’s Law, has supraconstitutional authority, e.g. Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 at paras 276-285 ; R v Dornn , 2012 MBCA 85 ; Dvoryadkina v Badalov aka Contant Blessings , 2013 ONSC 6067 at paras 19-22 , 25-27; Fidler v Burns Lake (Village) , 2013 BCSC 921 at paras 58- 60 ; Girard c La Reine , 2014 CCI 107 at para 23 ; MacDonald v First National Financial GP Corp , 2013 NSCA 60 at para 41 ;

McCartie v Canada (National Revenue) , 2015 FC 222 at para 19 ; R v Ainsworth , 2015 ONCJ 98 at paras 3-6 ; R v Tyskerud , 2013 BCPC 27 at paras 32-35 ; Servus Credit Union Ltd v Parlee , 2015 ABQB 700 at para 41 ; R v Simon, 2003 ABQB 358 at paras 2 , 4, 15; Taha v Government of PEI , 2018 PECA 18 at paras 16-17 ; Taha v National Bank of Canada , 2018 PESC 29 at paras 38-42 ; Potvin (Re) , 2018 ABQB 652 at paras 105-109 . [13] The Supreme Court of Canada in Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay (City) , 2015 SCC 16 at paras 144-149 ruled that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , s 7,

Part 1 of the Constitution Act , 1982 , being

Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11

preamble reference to the “supremacy of god” is essentially meaningless: ... the reference to the supremacy of God does not limit the scope of freedom of conscience and religion and does not have the effect of granting a privileged status to theistic religious practices. Contrary to what the respondents suggest, I do not believe that the

preamble can be used to interpret this freedom in this way. [14] Canadian Courts also consistently reject that the Coronation and Coronation Oath of Queen Elizabeth II has any special legal significance: Claeys v Her Majesty , 2013 MBQB 313 at paras 10-11 , 28; Law Society of British Columbia v Crischuk , 2017 BCSC 531 at paras 25 , 28, 30-32; R v Crischuk , 2007 BCPC 470 at paras 10-11 ; R v Lindsay , 2011 BCCA 99 at para 31 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 34331 (6 October 2011); Potvin (Re) at para 106 ; AVI v MHVB , 2020 ABQB 489 at paras 92-96 ; CP (Re) , 2019 ABQB 310 at para 28 ; Rothweiler v Payette , 2018 ABQB 399 at paras 64-65 ; R v Anderson , 2014 BCSC 2002 at para 27 . [15] I request the Gauvreaus explain why these legal authorities are incorrect.

B. The Statement of Claim is an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Proceeding [16] Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) ( Meads v Meads ) are a collection of spurious legally incorrect ideas that superficially sound like law, and purport to be real law. Pseudolaw is typically employed by conspiratorial, fringe, criminal, and dissident minorities who claim pseudolaw replaces or displaces conventional law.

These groups attempt to gain advantage, authority, and other benefits via this false law. [17] In Meads v Meads , Associate Chief Justice Rooke at paras 276-285 documented how purportedly superior religious law authority is a commonplace OPCA argument. Meads v Meads also examined how OPCA strategies are often employed by “Detaxers” and “Detaxer gurus” (paras 87-101, 125-133, 169-171) to evade or reject income tax obligations. [18] Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants immediate court response: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 180 , 670-671.

The Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim appears to be an abusive OPCA proceeding, and so I therefore require the Gauvreaus explain why their lawsuit is not OPCA litigation. C. The Income Tax Act is Valid Legislation [19] The Gauvreaus claim that the Income Tax Act , RSC 1985, c 1 (5 th Supp ) is not valid constitutional legislation.

The Alberta Court of Appeal in Winterhaven Stables Limited v Canada (Attorney General) , 1988 ABCA 334 at paras 12-16 ruled that the Income Tax Act is valid legislation authorized by The Constitution Act , 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3 , s 91. [20] Furthermore, the specific complaint made by the Gauvreaus is that a defect existed in the 1948 version of the Income Tax Act , and that defect then somehow propagated forward to invalidate the current legislation.

That exact argument was considered and rejected in Heckendorn v Canada , 2005 FC 802 ; R v Lemieux , 2007 SKPC 135 at paras 31-33 ; R v Crischuk , 2010 BCSC 716 at paras 48-52 , affirmed 2010 BCCA 39 ; R v Crischuk , 2010 BCCA 391 at para 3 , R v Sydel , 2010 BCSC 1473 at paras 24-25 , 35, affirmed 2011 BCCA 103 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 34249 (6 October 2011); and R v Gerlitz , 2014 ABQB 247 at paras 30-33 . [21] I request the Gauvreaus explain why these legal authorities are incorrect. IV.

Conclusion [22] The Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim appears to be a suitable AVAP candidate for review pursuant to CPN7.

The Court seeks responses from the Gauvreaus to the following questions: 1) Why are Canadian Court authorities that have rejected religious law has supraconstitutional status incorrect? 2) Why are Canadian Court authorities that have rejected the 1953 Coronation and Coronation Oath of Queen Elizabeth II has any legal significance incorrect? 3) Why is the Statement of Claim not an abusive OPCA pleading? 4) Why are the Canadian Court authorities that have rejected the 1948 Income Tax Act has any relevance to the current Income Tax Act incorrect? [23] CPN7 now advances to its second step.

This step consists entirely of written submissions; there will be no Court appearances or oral argument. The next steps are: 1) The Gauvreaus have 14 days to provide a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages, to be filed and served, as

described in para 3(

b) of CPN7. The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen”. 2) If this Court receives no Written Submission by that deadline, the Court will make its final decision on whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(c)). 3) If the Gauvreaus provide and serve a Written Submission, then the Defendant has seven days to provide a Written Reply of up to 10 pages in length (see CPN7, para 3(d)).

The Written Reply must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen”. 4) After the Court receives the Gauvreaus’ Written Submission and the Defendant’s Written Reply, if any, the Court will make its final decision on whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out in whole or in part, under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(e)). [24] The Court will prepare and serve an Interim Order staying this action (see CPN7, para 7). The Gauvreaus’ approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . Dated at the City of Wetaskiwin, Alberta thi s 10 th d ay of February, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Aminollah Sabzevari & Jeffrey ZH Tran Department of Justice, Prairie Region for the Defendant Appendix “A” - Body of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2112 00016 Statement of Claim The Parties-Statement of Facts Relied On 1 . Gary Neil is a non-franchised man and husband of Myra (Gauvreau) 2 . Myra is a woman and wife of Gary Neil(Gauvreau). 3 .

Diane (Diane) Lebouthillier is a woman, a member of the Privy Council Office (Canada), Member of Parliament, carrying on business as Minister of National Revenue. Diane has subscribed to an oath of allegiance to Elizabeth Alexandra Mary (Elizabeth). 4 . Elizabeth was at all material times, and continues to be, Chief of the Tribe of Judah. As such, Elizabeth is bound to administrate the 613 Laws and Commands set out in the Constitution Written in Heaven (Torah). Those who subscribe to an oath to Elizabeth are also bound to Torah.

5 . The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is a tax collecting entity charged, in part, with the collection of income and other taxes according to

section 91.3 of the British North America Bill (1867). 6 . The British North America Bill 1867 failed to receive Royal Assent due to the nature of the relationship between the Ruler of England, and it's Privy Council, and the Anishina'abeg or “Indians” of Turtle Island (“North America”). 7 . The arrangement between the “Indians”, the Ruler of England and it's Privy Council Office was established from St. James Palace NOT Westminster (Imperial Parliament) as such, the Imperial Parliament lacked any authority to “set up shop” on the Indian Territory.

Insofar as the restraints referenced within the last 7 paragraphs of the Royal Proclamation 1763 the Ruler and it's Privy Council Office could only hire contractors-mercenaries-Hessians to enforce policy (“Police”) over the settlers but not to enforce policy on the Indians. 8 . Currently, Elizabeth's concern over all Turtle Island flows from the Royal Proclamation of 1763. This device has yet to be amended. Due to the fact the Royal Proclamation 1763 has yet to be amended can only mean the laws applicable to Elizabeth's servants and subjects are locked-in to the laws of England of the 18 th Century. 9 .

Due to Elizabeth's, and George Frederick's (at 1763) genealogy to the 12 Tribes of Israel, the Laws which naturally flow from her are enumerated within the first 5 Books of the Ancient Scripture (Torah). 10 . Elizabeth became Chief of the Tribe of Judah upon the death of Judah George VI, her dad, February 6 th ., 1952. June 2 nd ., 1953 Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, at Westminster Cathedral, delegated her authority to pope (inc). The quid pro quo was pope (inc) would manage Elizabeth's affairs, have the people like her and grant her the “Civil List” or “pension”.

As with Elizabeth, pope (inc) is also bound to the Constitution Written in Heaven as set out in the Vulgate Bible invented 385+. Elizabeth is Chief of the Tribe of Judah, thus God's earthly representative. Pope (inc) is head of a rock. Both Elizabeth and pope (inc) are to administrate Torah. 11 . Diane is reliant upon some statutory authority other than the British North America Bill 1867. She knows this as if the British North America Bill 1867 was valid, her taxing authority would come from

section 54 and limited to what the Governor General authorizes. 12 . Diane knows the current so-called “income tax 'law'“ she is reliant upon is the so-called “Income Tax Act Canada R. S. C. 1985 5 th ., Supplement ch.1”. 13 . Diane knows the so-called “Income Tax Act Canada R. S. C. 1985 5 th ., Supplement ch.1” is a revision of the so-called “Income Tax Act R. S. C. 1952 c. 148”. 14 . Diane knows the so-called “Income Tax Act R. S. C. 1952 c. 148” is a revision of the so-called “Income Tax Act S. C. 1948 ch. 52”. 15 . Diane knows the so-called “Income Tax Act S. C. 1948 ch. 52” failed to receive authority under

section 54 of the British North America Bill 1867 thus of no force or effect yet she and her predecessors have kept this fraud, and treason, going for over 72 years. 16 . On or about January 5 th ., 2021 I advised Diane she lacked statutory authority to rely on an Income Tax law lacking Royal permission. She was informed by me when I took over the prosecution of Bob Hamilton's request my wife Myra (Gauvreau) comply with filing tax returns. 17 . Diane typically demands conformance to fraudulent tax compliance with a failure to comply being met with penalties of at least 50% of the alleged debt at times bearing a usurious interest rate of 5% per day compounded daily.

18 . Diane and her predecessors have forced me, and others, to comply with fake law for over 70 years and as against Gary and Myra(Gauvreau, for over 30 years. 19 . Diane and her predecessors is, and have been, bearing false witness. 20 . Diane and her predecessors is, and have been, coveting my property. 21 . Diane and her predecessors, are stealing and have been stealing my property (earnings) for over 30 years using a non-existent taxing scheme. 22 .

On the 26th day of October 2020 Diane ordered Bob Hamilton (Bob) of the Winnipeg office of CRA to attempt to extort from Myra her property under guise of a so-called income tax law. 23 . The taxation laws Diane rely come from some direction other than the British North America Bill 1867 for if the British North America Bill 1867 were valid compliance with

section 54 would be evident. While there are other instances than taxation, there is abundant proof the British North America Bill 1867 is a ruse, a fraud, a power, politics and money grab aimed at the destruction of the Original People. 24 . The Executive Council, as headed by Jason Kenney, have proven the “Canadian's” Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms U. K. 1982 c-11 ( Charter ) to be invalid. Mostly because it causes a rift between the Anishina'abeg and Elizabeth Alexandra Mary and her Privy Council England.

Jason Kenney has proven, beyond doubt, the Order in Council 80 was private administrative law, inconsistent with Charter provision, and was aimed at overthrowing the government of the Province of Alberta in order to destroy the fabric of society. Justin [Castro] Trudeau have been relying on Orders in Council for years to muscle policy into pseudo law. 25 . Further to the demise of the British North America Bill and the Charter , and to the fact the Royal Proclamation 1763 has yet to be amended, the laws of Turtle Island reflect those laws of 18 th ., Century England. 26 .

However, in considering Elizabeth Alexandra Mary's genealogy to Judah, her association with the King James Bible (KJB), her affiliation with the Catholic-Anglican Church of England, her pledge to uphold the Laws of God and her delegated authority: pope (inc) and its Vulgate Bible (Vulgate Version: VV) can only mean the Laws of Turtle Island can only come from the Constitution Written in Heaven set out in 5 Books called the Ancient Scripture or Torah. 27 .

Due to Elizabeth's and pope (inc)'s relationship with the God of the Israelites Diane has denied the authority of God, Elizabeth and pope (inc) thus acted to wage war upon God, Elizabeth and pope (inc). Diane has borne false witness contrary to Statute Exodus 20:9. 28 . Due to Elizabeth's and pope (inc)'s relationship with the God of the Israelites Diane has denied the authority of God, Elizabeth and pope (inc) thus acted to wage war upon God, Elizabeth and pope (inc). Diane is coveting my property contrary to Exodus 20:10. 29 .

Due to Elizabeth's and pope (inc)'s relationship with the God of the Israelites Diane has denied the authority of God, Elizabeth and pope (inc) thus acted to wage war upon God, Elizabeth and pope (inc). Diane has engaged in stealing property from others contrary to Exodus 20:8. Remedy Sought: 30 . Gary and Myra(Gauvreau) require Diane to pay back all funds extorted from me at the rate of 100% of estimated property stolen from me and Myra bearing a rate of 10% per day.

31 . Gary and Myra(Gauvreau) each claim the aforementioned amount to be $10,000,000.00. 32 . Remedy as proscribed by law for denying the authority of Elizabeth.