JRB’s Welding Service Inc v Family Division, 2021 ABQB 298

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: JRB’s Welding Service Inc v Family Division, 2021 ABQB 298 Date: 20210416 Docket: 2103 02700 Registry: Edmonton Between: JRB’s Welding Service Inc./JRB’s Outfitting, Welding and Mechanical Dynasty Inc./Jeremiah Roy Brymer The Government of Alberta Applicants - and - Family Division, MEP, Fix & Smith Law, AISH, CPP-D, JRB’s WSI 13.12, RCMP, CRA, Boilermakers, Air Liquide, CRS Towing, AHRC, CHRC, Department of Justice, Stony Plain Provincial Court, Media The Government of Alberta Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G.

Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Background [ 1 ] On March 5, 2021, parties who I am naming as “Applicants” filed a highly unusual, all capital letter document with the

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (“Application”) that is titled: ORIGINATING APPLICATION-NOTICE OF APPEAL, REFERENCE UNDER MULTIPLE ENACTMENTS AND DISPUTANTS DEMANDS APPLICATION FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION OVER CONTENTS OF MANY ILLEGAL JUDGEMENTS AND ORDERS SINCE 2002, 9.3 (Sic.) The style of cause above replicates the manner in which the Application names the parties. The Applicants call themselves “Disputants, Executioners, Applicants, Plaintiffs, Creditors.” The opposing parties, who I am naming as “Respondents”, are called “Respondents, Defendants, Debtors”.

The Application is currently set to be heard on May 3, 2021. [ 2 ] The title of the Application is followed by 14 “Demand Applications” that appear to each indicate a different breach of legislation or rights and seek damages, for example: -DEMAND APPLICATION FOR MONETARY DAMAGES VIOLATIONS OF (*E*) THE ALBERTA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, SEVERE DISCRIMINATION AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS WITH (*U*) EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY AND DIPLOMACY ... -DEMAND APPLICATION FOR MONETARY DAMAGES, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH (*K*) THE JUDICATURE ACT ( ALBERTA RULES OF COURT ), FAILURE TO ADMINISTRATE THE LAW, FAILURE TO FILE AFFIDAVIT OF RECORDS ... -DEMAND APPLICATION FOR MONETARY DAMAGES VIOLATIONS OF (*Q*) THE CEMETERY COMPANIES ACT, THE COURTS LACK OF RESPECT FOR DEAD ENTITIES NAMELY: DEAN BRYMER FATHER,ROY BRYMER GRANDFATHER, GRACE BRYMER GRANDMOTHER, GERALD ESTEY GRANDFATHER, DORTHY ESTEY GRANDMOTHER, THESE ENTITIES ARE IN CEMETERIES, THESE ENTITIES ARE SHAREHOLDERS IN JEREMIAH ROY BRYMER'S OUTFITTING DYNASTY (Sic.) [ 3 ] The Application then appears to indicate this action is to enforce debts: NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS, DEFENDANTS, DEBTORS: FAMILY DIVISION, MEP, FIX & SMITH LAW, STONY PLAIN PROVINCIAL COURT, MEDIA, CPP, AISH, RCMP, CRA, BOILERMAKERS, CRS TOWING, AHRC, CHRC, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AIR LIQUIDE, JRB'S WSI 13.12, GOV.OFAB (DEBTORS) THE DISPUTANTS APPLICATION IS MADE AGAINST YOU.

YOU ARE A DEBTOR. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO STATE YOUR ILLEGAL SIDE OF THIS MATTER BEFORE JEREMIAH ROY BRYMER THEN THE MASTER/JUSTICE. DO NOT EVER JUDGE JEREMIAH ROY BRYMER. I AM JUSTICE AND ALL THE ILLEGALITIES THAT HAVE PUT ME INTO DISREPUTE FOR NOTHING IS COMING TO AN ABRUPT END. I AM DAMAGED FOR LIFE. [ 4 ] The Appellants’ grounds for this proceeding are the alleged but undescribed violations of 18 statutes, and SEVERE CORRUPTION, TERRORISM, TYRANNY, DISCRIMINATION, COMMUNISM. ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR OF AND IN SOCIETY, ILLEGAL ORDERS, ILLEGAL ARRESTS, REJECTIONS FROM VARIOUS GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS.

ILLEGAL TERMINATION OF 200300890. [ 5 ] The Application seeks what appear to be unilateral Orders, including: 1. four Alberta court proceedings are “TERMINATED”; 2. “MEP FILE # 2069508 IS TERMINATED”; 3. Jeremiah Roy Brymer’s (Mr. Brymer) drivers’ licence and firearms licences are “FULLY REINSTATED”; 4. “THE BOILERMAKERS” shall transfer $57,607.41 to Mr. Brymer’s RRSP account; 5. Mr. Brymer shall receive monthly AISH payments of $1,364.98, starting retroactively on March 2018; 6. “CRA IS ORDERED AND WILL FORFEIT ALL MONIES OWED BY JEREMIAH ROY BRYMER UPON SERVICE.

THE HONORABLE AMBASSADOR JEREMIAH ROY BRYMER HAS DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY AND IS TAX EXEMPT FROM CRA FOR LIFE. ...”; 7. $25 billion in damages to Mr. Brymer “... PAYABLE IN FULL ...

IMMEDIATELY.”; and 8. “JRB’S WSI NEW NET INCOME IS 22 NONILLION DOLLARS TO SUSTAIN NUCLEAR FUSION.” [ 6 ] The list of remedies concludes with a statement that “CIVIL RIGHTS ARE OF THE UPMOST IMPORTANCE FOR EVERYONE TILL THE END OF TIME.” (sic). [ 7 ] On April 9, 2021, Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, which represents the RCMP, CRA, and Canadian Department of Justice, by letter referred the Application 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 Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench. CPN7 is reviewable on-line at https://www.albertacourts.ca/qb/areas-of-law/civil/practice-notes.

[8] I have reviewed the Application and conclude that it is an AVAP because this filing has elements that Courts identify ascharacteristics of hopeless and abusive proceedings. On that basis, I conclude the Application should be subject to a CPN7 show-causedocument-based review under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, AR 124/2010. That means I have decided that the Applicants mustfile a Written Submission setting out why their Application should not be struck out because it is significantly deficient. II.

CPN7 [9] The Court implemented CPN7 to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no chance ofsuccess, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

CPN7 is intended to provide litigants with a timely, proportionate, and cost-effectiveresponse: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2018 ABQB 874 (Unrau #1). [10] If, on initial review by the Court, an AVAP appears to have no merit, have no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive andvexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue or issues that may be a basis to strike out theAVAP under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court. [11] The party who filed the AVAP is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide to the Court a Written Submission ofup to a total of 10 pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the AVAP is a legitimate action and should be permitted tocontinue.

The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of” the Justice who initiates the CPN7 process, and mustalso be served on the other parties to the litigation. [12] CPN7 is not to be used for “close calls”. The Court only intervenes when the defect(

s) in question are “apparent on the face ofthe pleading”, and the suspect pleadings are “clearer cases of abuse”: Unrau #1 at paras 22 and 24. [13] The Court only considers restricted forms of evidence when it conducts a CPN7 review because this process has a very narrowfocus and operates to examine a single document and its content: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2019 ABQB 347 atparas 24-48 (Ubah #2). There are exceptions to that rule.

For example, the Court may examine other documents in the same proceedingthat are related to the suspect filing (Ubah #2 at para 35), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt tolitigate an issue that has already been decided or closed (Ubah #2 at para 45). III. Analysis [14] The Application appears to exhibit several issues. A. Inadequate Pleadings [15] An Application or Statement of Claim sets the issues to which the opposing party must respond, and alerts that party of thecase it must meet: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18 at para 87.

Proper pleadings require more than simply bare assertions, or“bald allegations” of wrongdoing: GH v Alcock, 2013 ABCA 24 at para 58; Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015FCA 227 at paras 16-20. Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and other litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate tothe responding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health andWelfare) at para 19.

The Supreme Court of Canada in Mackay v Manitoba, (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 357, 61 DLR (4th)485, instructed that a factual foundation, or an alleged factual foundation, is an absolute requirement for pleadings that seek potentialCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being

Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982,c 11. (Charter) relief. [16] The Applicants cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Defendants to “fill inthe blanks”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) at para 20. A lack of specificity is not merely a technical defect, butgoes to the core of the claim: GH v Alcock at para 58, citing AL v Ontario (Minister of Community and Social Services) (2006), (ON CA), 274 DLR (4th) 431, 218 OAC 150 (Ont CA).

Inadequate pleadings abuse the Court’s process because arespondent cannot defend against unclear and non-specific claims and the Court cannot control the proceedings, identify the proposedargument, or make findings on the relevant facts: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 629 [Unrau #2]. [17] The Application names 18 Respondents, but does not even mention almost all of them anywhere in the body of theApplication. Some Respondents, such as “Media”, are not described in a meaningful way so that they may be identified.

The Applicationsometimes indicates specific legislation provisions were breached, but does not say “by who, when, where, and how”. There is noindication as to the basis for the $25 billion damages claim. [18] Other parts of the Application have no obvious basis. Mr. Brymer says he is an “honorable ambassador”. Of what entity?How is “JRB’s WSI NEW NET INCOME” relevant “TO SUSTAIN NUCLEAR FUSION.” How are the Respondents involved in“NUCLEAR FUSION”?

Which Respondents committed “COMMUNISM”, and how were the Applicants affected or harmed by that? [19] I request the Applicants explain how the Application provides a basis for this Court and the Respondents to make ameaningful response. B. Excessive or Impossible Remedies [20] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625. The Application seeks, among other things, “termination” of other litigation, apparently outside the legislated appeal and reviewprocesses.

[ 21 ] The $25 billion damages claim has no obvious basis either in the alleged facts or under Canadian law. I am unclear on whether the Application seeks an award of “22 NONILLION DOLLARS”, or if this is a statement or declaration. The word “nonillion” apparently in the US means “a number equal to 1 followed by 30 zeros”, while in the UK the term “nonillion” means “a number equal to 1 followed by 54 zeros”.

In either case, if the Applicants are seeking a court-ordered award in the nonillions, then I believe I may take judicial notice that amount is much greater than the global GDP. [ 22 ] I therefore request the Applicants indicate how they have not sought excessive or impossible remedies. C. Critical Irregularities [ 23 ] Rule 3.68(2) (

e) of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 states that pleadings may be struck out if “... an irregularity in a commencement document or pleading is so prejudicial to the claim that it is sufficient to defeat the claim.” [ 24 ] There are many irregularities in the Application. “The Government of Alberta” is named as both an Applicant and a Respondent. The Application states it is both an Originating Application and a Notice of Appeal.

The Alberta Rules of Court do not provide for these two separate processes within the same litigation. [ 25 ] The Application purports to be enforcing debts, rather than seeking a remedy. It appears Mr. Brymer is claiming to determine this proceeding, personally, prior to the Court being involved. The Application purportedly will be heard by “... PODIUM DISPENSARY RECORDS FILED AND COMMISSIONED.” I do not know what this means. [ 26 ] Given these observations, the Applicants are asked to explain how the Application is a valid proceeding under the Alberta Rules of Court . IV.

Conclusion [ 27 ] The Application appears to be a suitable AVAP candidate for review pursuant to CPN7. The Court seeks that the Applicants respond to three questions: 1) How does the Application provide an adequate basis for the Court and Respondents to make a meaningful response? 2) How are the remedies sought in the Application not excessive or impossible? 3) How is the Application a valid proceeding under the Alberta Rules of Court ? [ 28 ] 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 Applicants have 14 days to prepare 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 Application 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 Applicants provide and serve a Written Submission, then the Respondents each have 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 Applicants’ Written Submission and the Respondents’ Written Reply, if any, the Court will make its final decision on whether the Application should be struck out in whole or in part, under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 29 ] Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No. 2103 02700 Action is stayed until further notice. The scheduled May 3, 2021 appearance is cancelled.

The Court will prepare and serve an Interim Order staying this action (see CPN7, para 7). The Applicants’ approval of the Interim Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . This Decision and the Interim Stay Order may be served on the Applicants via the email addresses on the Application: jbrymer1977@gmail.com and jimweld55@hotmail.com. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta thi s 16 th day of April, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Keelan Sinnott Prairie Region Department of Justice Canada for the Defendants RCMP, CRA, and the Department of Justice