Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Gauvreau v Lebouthillier, 2021 ABQB 172 Date: 20210304 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, and the entire Statement of Claim is reproduced in Gauvreau v Lebouthillier , 2021

ABQB 108 ( Gauvreau #1 ) as Appendix “A”. [ 2 ] What is clear from the Statement of Claim is the Gauvreaus on multiple bases claim 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 6.

I am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Wetaskiwin at the Court of Queen’s Bench. [ 5 ] After review of the Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim, I concluded in Gauvreau #1 that the Statement of Claim was an AVAP that warranted review via a document-based show-cause CPN7 procedure.

The Gauvreaus were asked provide the Court within 14 days a Written Submission of up to ten pages that responded to four 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? ( Gauvreau #1 at para 22 .) [ 6 ] On February 16, 2021, Mr.

Gauvreau by letter requested an extension of the Written Submission deadline to March 2, 2021. That extension was granted. The Gauvreaus’ Written Submission was received on February 22, 2021. Counsel for the Minister submitted their Written Reply on February 25, 2021. A further five-page fax rebuttal was received from Mr. Gauvreau on March 1, 2021. I will not refer further to the March 1, 2021 fax, and have disregarded it, since: 1) the March 1, 2021 fax rebuttal is not a part of the CPN7 process, and 2) the fax did not raise any new and relevant issues or arguments. II.

Analysis [ 7 ] The Gauvreaus’ Written Submission responds to the four questions set in Gauvreau #1 . However, prior to evaluating the Gauvreaus’ Written Submission, I will first address two preliminary issues: 1) whether I should recuse myself; and 2) the admissibility of documents and items that were attached to the Gauvreaus’ Written Submission. A. Preliminary Issue #1 - Recusal [ 8 ] Written Submission paragraph 27 reads: Kenneth Nielson must recuse himself from this matter as he has prejudiced me in taking a side by acting as co-counsel with the lawyers defending Diane Lebouthillier.

Kenneth Nielson allowed Diane Lebothillier’s lawyers to meet with him or consider material furnished by those lawyers absent my attendance, knowlege and ability to apply my own defense as an attempt to derail my Statement of Claim. Kenneth Nielson has abolished due process and the rule of law by siding with the lawyers defending Diane Lebouthillier knowing Diane Lebouthillier suffers want of defense.

(Sic.) [ 9 ] The Minister responds that the Gauvreaus have not established a factual basis for recusal ( Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2020 ABQB 547 at paras 11-20 ), and, furthermore, the current CPN7 process is a valid procedure that provided the Gauvreaus the opportunity for submissions. [ 10 ] I interpret the Gauvreaus’ complaints to not allege that I am biased, but rather that I have already engaged a procedure that is unlawful and unfair. On that I agree with the Minister; the Gauvreaus are incorrect in fact and law.

The Court has an inherent jurisdiction to manage is processes and control abusive litigation, including to terminate abusive litigation: Grepe v Loam , (1887) 37 Ch D 168 (UK CA) ; I H Jacob, “The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court” (1970) 23:1 Current Legal Problems 23 at 38, 41-46. r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 is an aspect of that authority. [ 11 ] CPN7 provides procedural fairness since the CPN7 procedure permits both parties to make submissions once a proceeding is identified as exhibiting prima facie defects. The Gauvreaus are not answering allegations or claims by the Minister.

The Gauvreaus are responding only to issues identified by the Court itself in Gauvreau #1 . CPN7 and its analogues have been identified as valid legal procedures by multiple appellate courts: e.g. Wilcox v Alberta , 2020 ABCA 104 ; Scaduto v The Law Society of Upper Canada , 2015 ONCA 733 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36753 (21 April 2016); Van Sluytman v Muskoka (District Municipality) , 2018 ONCA 32 , leave to appeal to SCC refused (1 November 2018); Taha v Government of PEI , 2018 PECA 18 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38997 (2 April 2020). Rule 6.9(1) (

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 permits legal procedures on a document only basis. [ 12 ] I therefore conclude that the Gauvreaus are incorrect that my issuing Gauvreau #1 has “abolished due process and the rule of law”. Rather, I am conducting a typical “show cause” proceeding to evaluate an apparently abusive Statement of Claim, as authorized by the common law, the Alberta Rules of Court , and CPN7. B. Preliminary Issue #2 - Evidence Admissible in Rule 3.68 Proceeding [ 13 ] CPN7 is a method to conduct the r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court process.

Subsection 3.68(3) of the Alberta Rules of Court states that: No evidence may be submitted on an application made on the basis ... [a commencement document or pleading discloses no reasonable claim ...] [ 14 ] Parts of the Gauvreaus’ Written Submission expand on the narrative in their Statement of Claim. Those components of the Written Submission are inadmissible to the degree that those parts of the Written Submission advance additional alleged facts. [ 15 ] The Gauvreaus’ Written Submission attaches a number of items, which in order are: • Appendix “A” - the

Interpretation Act 1850 (UK), 13 & 14 Vict, c 21. • a one-page chart titled “The Lunar Sabbath Calendar”. • Appendix “B” - a document titled “Genealogy Elizabeth Alexandra Mary to Judah”, sourced from a website (https://www.cogtv.org/Library/Lineage/), that traces a 154-person family record from “Adam (B. C. 4000-3070), Eve” through the “Kings in Palestine”, “Kings of Ireland”, “Kings of Argyleshire”, “Sovereigns of Scotland”, “Sovereigns of Great Britain”, to “Q.

Elizabeth II (b. 1926 1952 to Present)”. • Appendix “C” - two colour photographs of a stained-glass window located in Osgoode Hall. • Appendix “D” - two pages of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1952, including the first page of the Income Tax Act , 11-12 Geo VI, c 53, s 13. • Appendix “E” - five pages from Hansard, dating from 1917 and 1947. • Appendix “F” - the first page of 1948 legislation:

An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act , 11-12 Geo VI, c 53, s 13. • Appendix “G” - three pages from Hansard, dating from 1921. [ 16 ] Several of these items are inadmissible as evidence that is excluded by r 3.68(3) of the Alberta Rules of Court : the Lunar Sabbath Calendar and Appendices B and C. The legislation identified by the Gauvreaus is not evidence and therefore is admissible. I am permitted to take judicial notice of House of Commons proceedings reported in Hansard ( Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v NAPE , 2004 SCC 66 at para 56 ), so I have considered Appendices E and G in my analysis that follows. C.

God’s Law Does Not Have Supraconstitutional Status [ 17 ] Gauvreau #1 identifies Canadian caselaw that has ruled religious law does not have supraconstitutional status (para 12) and that the reference to “the supremacy of god” is the

preamble of 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 ( Charter ) is legally irrelevant (para 13). The Gauvreaus were asked to identify why these legal authorities were incorrect. [ 18 ] Much of the Gauvreaus’ Written Submission addresses this inquiry. 1. The Charter

Preamble

[19] The

Preamble to the Charter reads: Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: [20] The Gauvreaus in their Written Submission distinguish the “God of the Ancient Israelites” from “[t]he various gods”addressed in Charter s 2. The latter are subject to legislation since they are businesses: “Saving souls is big business.” and “TheLegislatures or the Parliament can suspend the saving of souls indefinitely under

section 33 but in 5-year increments.” The Gauvreausargue what makes the “God of the Ancient Israelites” different is the Charter

preamble: ...

Section 33 is prevented from over-ridding the God of the Ancient Israelites set out in the

preamble to the Charter. ... “God” in the

preamble to the Charter is valid as if God was other than valid, such invalidation would deny the operation of “the rule oflaw”. The

preamble concludes with a “colon” punctuation mark thus setting the tone of what is to follow. (Sic, emphasis in original). [21] The Supreme Court of Canada has long recognized that

preambles are relevant to interpret legislation (e.g. Hewson v OntarioPower Co (1905), (SCC), 36 SCR 596, Vancouver Sun (Re), 2004 SCC 43 at para 3) and constitutional documents (e.g.The Queen v Beauregard, (SCC), [1986] 2 SCR 56 at 72). The Supreme Court of Canada has at times referenced “therule of law” component of the Charter

preamble as legally relevant. For example, the Court in Re Manitoba Language Rights, (SCC), [1985] 1 SCR 721 at 750, 19 DLR (4th) 1 concluded: The constitutional status of the rule of law is beyond question. The

preamble to the Constitution Act, 1982 states: Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. (Emphasis added.) This is explicit recognition that “the rule of law [is] a fundamental postulate of our constitutional structure” ... It becomes a postulate ofour own constitutional order by way of the

preamble to the Constitution Act, 1982 ... [22] Subsequently, Cory J in Canadian Council of Churches v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (SCC), [1992] 1 SCR 236 at 250, 88 DLR (4th) 193 concluded: The rule of law is recognized in the

preamble of the Charter which reads: Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: The rule of law is thus recognized as a corner stone of our democratic form of government. [23] In this sense the Gauvreaus make a very relevant point. If “the rule of law” in the

preamble is a “fundamental postulate”, and“corner stone”, then how is “God” not supreme? The plain text of the whole

preamble must mean something. Some academics who havecommented on “the supremacy of God” component of the

preamble have suggested that “the supremacy of God” is some kind of indirectreference to natural law (Jonathon W Penney & Robert J Danay, “The Embarrassing

Preamble? Understanding the ‘Supremacy of God’and the Charter” (2006) 39:2 UBC L Rev 287), or human dignity (Lorne Sossin, “The ‘Supremacy of God,’ Human Dignity and theCharter of Rights and Freedoms” (2003) 52 UNBLJ 227). Alternatively, the “supremacy of God” phrase has also been identified as “aparticularly obnoxious example” of “bad legislative drafting”, that has had the unfortunate, but not unexpected, effect of misdirectinglaypersons: “... the Charter

preamble will be read, interpreted, and applied by ordinary persons, and to them, “supremacy of God” likelymeans exactly what it says.”: Donald J Netolitzky, “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments as Magic and Ceremony” (2018)55:4 Alta L Rev 1045 at 1052-1053. [24] The simple answer to the Gauvreaus’ argument is that this Court is subject to binding case law. In Gauvreau #1 at para 13, Icited the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16 that at paras 144-149rejects that the

preamble “supremacy of God” reference has legal effect. This is a first reason I reject the Gauvreaus’ claim that God’sLaw has supraconstitutional authority - the Charter

preamble “supremacy of God” component does not mean religious law or principleshave any superior authority. 2. God’s Law is Supreme [25] The Gauvreau’s Written Submission is difficult to summarize. The Gauvreaus indicate the supreme law is “... the Laws ofGod, sometimes referred to as “Constitution Written in Heaven” ...” (emphasis in original), which is “... the first 5 Books (Genesis,Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers).” The Gauvreaus argue this fact is already recognized by the legal profession, because astained-glass window in Convocation Hall, of Osgoode Hall in downtown Toronto, shows “... the 5 Scrolls of Moses IS valid law. ...”. [26] The Written Submission states the Charter

preamble is a reference to this God’s Constitution, which is the supreme law thatcannot be altered by man: ... The “supremacy” of God set out in the aforementioned

preamble is reflected in His Creation and the [area code] 613 Laws andCommands (Constitution Written in Heaven) passed to Moses on Mount Sier. The “rule of law” in the

preamble is redundant as HisConstitution Written in Heaven is His rule of Law. Elizabeth is restrained from giving Royal Assent to the Charter as inventing such alaw would make her a hypocrite regarding the last 7 paragraphs of her Royal Proclamation of 1763. This holds true for the “Act” byVictoria thus the reason the “Act” has yet to be given a Royal Seal or Stamp. This would deny the authority of her partners in Trade, the“Original People” of Turtle Island (“North America”).

Moreover, giving such Royal Assent would defininatly tarnish the good name,reputation and dignity of his eminent domaine pope (inc) as Elizabeth’s delegated authority. If the Charter was bona fide the whole ofthe Charter would consist of “11” words: Whereas Canada was founded under principles that recognises the supremacy of God.

... The Constitution Written in Heaven stands alone, separate and apart from the Babylonian laws and the code of Cana’an (“canon”) law. The [area code] 613 Laws and Commands set out in the Constitution Written in Heaven ARE supra-Constitutional as only God can amend those Laws and Commands NOT Josephus of Edom, Constantine of Cana’an (Edom + Hittites = Genesis 36:2) or any other man, woman or child. The God of the 12 Tribes of the Israelites is a jealous God intolerant of the gods inferred under s. 2 of the Charter .

This is another reason the Laws attached to Elizabeth, and to her servants and subjects, especially this court, Diane Lebouthillier and her counsels, by oath of alignment, are found in the Constitution Written in Heaven . (Sic, emphasis in original.) [ 27 ] As I understand the Gauvreaus’ Written Submission, Queen Elizabeth II obtained authority as “holder in due course of the King James Bible”, and as: ... the head of the Catholic-Anglican Church of England (CACE).

Even though the CACE is a privately owned commercial business, engaged in “saving souls”, this company confirms the God of the Ancient Israelites and Constitution Written in Heaven. [ 28 ] This authority was then delegated to “pope (inc)”: The Vulgate Version of the Bible NV) is attached to pope (inc).

At 1213, when King John, who Lackedland, delegated England, Ireland, his heirs and successors (all Presidents of the United States of America and PRESIDENTS OF the United States) and its authority, as ruler, to the corporation sole POPE INNOCENT III (inc), the laws common to the Heptarchy, sometimes referred to as the “common law”, were abolished and the laws of the Heptarchy yielded to the Constitution Written in Heaven . On or about June 2nd., 1953 Elizabeth delegated her authority to pope (inc).

The quid pro quo being; pope (inc) will manage Elizabeth’s affairs in exchange for a pension- civil list and have the people like her. The Laws of Elizabeth and pope (inc) flow from the Constitution Written in Heaven . [ 29 ] The Minister argues that there is no merit to any claim that religious law has a supraconstitutional effect. I agree, and conclude that the Gauvreaus have not rebutted the case law cited in Gauvreau #1 that rejects religious law has supraconstitutional status. What the Gauvreaus advance is a conspiratorial narrative that has no relationship to Canadian and commonwealth law and history.

In Gagnon v Core Real Estate Group , 2018 ABQB 913 at para 6 , Gill J concluded the Court has no obligation to respond to “gibberish”. That rule applies here to this component of the Gauvreaus’ materials. This is the second basis on which I conclude the Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim is an abuse of the Court: the Statement of Claim argues the “ Constitution Written in Heaven ” is the supreme law in Canada, which it is not. D.

Coronation and Coronation Oath of Queen Elizabeth II [ 30 ] Gauvreau #1 at para 14 identified a number of authorities that reject the Coronation and Coronation Oath of Queen Elizabeth II has special legal significance. In their Written Submission the Gauvreaus’ agree that case law is correct, because the Coronation Oath “... is clearly a redundancy.” The Gauvreaus state that Queen Elizabeth II instead took power immediately when “Judah George VI” died on February 6, 1952. The Gauvreaus’ explain that Queen Elizabeth instead immediately obtained her authority via her religious status: ...

When Elizabeth became Chief of the Tribe of Judah she conformed with Genesis 49:10 to wit: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah or a Law giver between her feet until Shiloh comes.”. As such, a question arises as to just why Elizabeth was involved in those proceedings at Westminster but for a “dog and pony” show ... [ 31 ] I accept the Gauvreaus’ clarification of their theory for why they are exempt from income tax. However, since that theory still is based on the error that God’s Law has supraconstitutional status, this clarification makes no difference to my conclusion above in

Part II(C). E. The Statement of Claim is an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Proceeding [ 32 ] Gauvreau #1 at paras 16-18 identifies the Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim as advancing Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA), citing Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 as the keystone authority on that phenomenon. Litigation that employs OPCA strategies 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 ( Unrau #2 ).

I requested the Gauvreaus explain why their lawsuit is not abusive OPCA litigation. [ 33 ] The Written Submission rejected this category entirely: It is unclear to me how this court has arrived at an obvious erroneous conclusion my wife and me are prime candidates to be labelled an OPCA “person”. This court would have to elaborate as to how it has unilaterally arrived at its conclusion we are somehow part of this domestic terrorist group. Claiming my wife and me are part of OPCA, absent any proof, is malicious, libellous and scandalous.

I lack the ability to comment on this bold, baseless tort unless this court fully elaborates on what is meant. [ 34 ] Meads v Meads provides 736 paragraphs exploring and rebutting the OPCA phenomenon. The Gauvreaus were directed to a resource that provides a more than adequate explanation of the OPCA components of their litigation.

Furthermore, the Written Submission exhibits yet more OPCA motifs, such as using arbitrary capitalization of names to indicate legal status (Written Submission, para 8), and claiming legislation only operates via contract (Written Submission, para 31). [ 35 ] I conclude that the Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim is abusive OPCA litigation. This is a third independent basis for why the Gauveaus’ lawsuit should be struck out.

F. The Income Tax Act is Valid Legislation [36] Paragraphs 19-21 of Gauvreau #1 identify authorities that indicate the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) is validlitigation, and asks the Gauvreaus why these authorities are incorrect. [37] The Written Submission states that the current Income Tax Act is a revised version of earlier income tax legislation, and “[a]Revised Act never abolishes the “parent” enactment.

The Gauvreaus clarify that they alleged the 1948 version of the Income Tax Actwas illegal because the amending legislation was not “recommended” by the Governor General, pursuant to The Constitution Act, 1867,30 & 31 Vict, c 3, s 54 (BNA): 54 It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or Bill for the appropriation of anypart of the public revenue or of any tax or impost to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of thegovernor general in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or Bill is proposed. [38] The Gauvreaus say that Hansard and the historical legislation that they have provided establishes the initial original IncomeTax Act of 1917 was spent by 1920, and that the 1948 Income Tax Act was a “fiction of law” because it was not properly recommendedby the Governor General pursuant to BNA s 54. [39] The Minister responds that the Gauvreaus have not rebutted the case law identified in Gauvreau #1 at para 20 that concludesthat alleged defects in the 1948 Income Tax Act have no relevance to the current legislation, and that the Income Tax Act does not offendthe BNA ss 91-92 division of power. [40] I agree with the Minister, but there is a further factor.

The Gauvreaus misunderstand the function of BNA s 54. The SupremeCourt of Canada in Eurig Estate (Re), (SCC), [1998] 2 SCR 565 at para 37, 165 DLR (4th) 1 ruled that provisionrelates to “appropriation” of taxes, and not “imposition” of taxes, citing Joan Small, “Money Bills and the Use of the RoyalRecommendation in Canada: Practice versus Principle?” (1995) 27:1 Ottawa L Rev 33 at 40.

The Gauvreaus’ claim that the Income TaxAct of 1948 (and its successors) are illegal unauthorized taxes because of BNA s 54 is therefore incorrect in law. [41] The Gauvreaus also make a number of other claims concerning the legality of the Income Tax Act: 1.

The Charter itself is invalid because “Jason Kenney unilaterally evoked “orders in Council 80-2020” on March 17th., 2020 tooverride the entire Charter. ...”. 2. “The so-called “Affirmative Action Program” ... violates s. 28, the Notwithstanding Section, wherein if the state is out topersecute the male population it must equally persecute the female population. The purpose of the “Affirmative Action Program” is tocreate Bastard Children in violation of Deuteronomy 23.” 3.

A difficult to understand statement that “Judah George III and his private investors” interloped on “Turtle Island” and the“Imperial Parliament was able to clone itself”, permitting illegal activity by “Policy enforcers (“Police”)”. [42] These are further “gibberish” arguments that do not require a specific response. [43] I therefore conclude that the Gauvreaus have not established that the Income Tax Act is illegal or unauthorized legislation,which is another separate basis to strike out the Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim. G.

Impossible Remedy or Relief [44] A further reason to strike out the Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim emerges from the Written Submission itself, that not onlyargues that the Gauvreaus’ lawsuit is valid, but further demands this Court make several orders: ... My Statement of Claim is impervious to attack. Therefore, I require this court to order Diane Lebouthillier to settle my Statement ofClaim, summarily, based on Stated Case. ...

Diane Lebouthillier must also be dealt with under the Laws set out in the Constitution Written in Heaven, attached to her through heroath to Elizabeth for denying the authority of Elizabeth. [45] This Court has neither the authority to order a party “settle” a lawsuit, nor does the Court enforce “the Constitution Written inHeaven” against oath-breakers. These are impossible remedies, and therefore an abuse of the Court and its processes: Unrau #2 at paras623-625. These hopeless claims are a further basis to terminate the Gauvreaus’ litigation. III.

Conclusion [46] I have concluded on multiple independent bases that the Gauvreaus’ Statement of Claim has no basis in law, and is an abuseof the Court. The Statement of Claim is therefore struck out pursuant to r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court and CPN7, para 3(e). [47] When an action is terminated via the CPN7 process, the usual practice of this Court is to award costs in favour of the litigantwho referred the matter to the Court: e.g.

Ahad v Calgary Housing Company, 2020 ABQB 450 at para 9; Phillips v Kenney, 2020ABQB 452 at para 9; Skrypichayko v Law Society of Alberta, 2020 ABQB 604 at para 43; Feeney v Alberta, 2020 ABQB 633 at para 6.I see no reason to depart from that approach in this instance. The Minister in her Written Reply seeks $675 in costs. I order Gary NeilGauvreau and Myra Marie Gauvreau pay the Minister $675 in costs, forthwith.

[ 48 ] Counsel for the Minister shall prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision. The Gauvreaus’ approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . The Gauvreaus may be served with this Memorandum of Decision and the corresponding Order to the Gauvreaus’ email address indicated in the Written Submission: livingsoul214@mailfence.com Dated at the City of Wetaskiwin, Alberta thi s 4 th d ay of March, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Gary Neil Gauvreau and Myra Marie Gauvreau Self-represented Litigants Aminollah Sabzevari & Jeffrey ZH Tran Department of Justice, Prairie Region for the Defendant