JRB’s Welding Service Inc v Family Division, 2021 ABQB 369

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: JRB’s Welding Service Inc v Family Division, 2021 ABQB 369 Date: 20210510 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 _______________________________________________________ [ 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 (the 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”. [ 2 ] The remainder of the Application is cryptic, and includes 14 “Demand Applications”, claims violations of 18 statutes and alleges: 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. (Sic.) [ 3 ] The Application makes what appears 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.” [ 4 ] The list of remedies concludes with a statement that “CIVIL RIGHTS ARE OF THE UPMOST IMPORTANCE FOR EVERYONE TILL THE END OF TIME.” (sic). [ 5 ] 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. I reviewed the Application, and in a decision reported as JRB’s Welding Service Inc v Family Division , 2021 ABQB 298 ( JRB’s #4 ), concluded the Application is an AVAP because this filing has elements that Courts identify as characteristics of hopeless and abusive proceedings.

I stayed Action No. 2103 02700, ordered a May 3, 2021 appearance cancelled, and requested that the Applicants provide an up to 10-page Written Submission that responded to three questions: 1) How does the Application provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendants 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 ? ( JRB’s #4 at para 27.) [ 6 ] On April 21, 2021, the Applicants filed an eight-page document titled: DISPUTE OVER CONTENTS OF JUSTICE NEILSEN’S ILLEGAL INTERIM STAY ON PROCEEDINGS ORDER, NOTICE OF APPEAL OF JUSTICE NEILSEN’S ILLEGAL INTERIM STAY ON PROCEEDINGS ORDER & IMMEDIATE DEMAND FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION, REPLEVIN, INTERPLAEADER ORDER WITHOUT DELAY, REFERENCE UNDER MULTIPLE ENACTMENTS (Sic.) The same Respondent parties are named, but now the Respondents are identified as “TERRORISTS, CORRUPTIONISTS, TYRANTS, DISCRIMINATIONISTS, EVIL DEGENERATES, RESPONDENTS, DEFENDANTS, DEBTORS”. [ 7 ] The exact intent of this “Dispute” document is unclear.

A handwritten annotation to the document reads “RESPONSE TO CPN7 JUSTICE NEILSEN” (emphasis in original). The document at least in part purports to initiate an appeal of JRB’s #4 to be heard in Special Chambers before a Justice or Master on May 3, 2021, but also seeks the same remedies as the Application. [ 8 ] The Dispute document was brought to my attention, and, on April 23, 2021, I wrote a letter in response: I have received and reviewed your document submitted in response to the CPN7 process set by the JRB’s Welding Service Inc v Family Division , 2021 ABQB 298 decision and that was filed on April 21, 2021.

Your document purports to set an “appeal” scheduled to be heard on May 3, 2021. No hearing will occur since the Docket 2103 02700 proceeding is stayed by my April 16, 2021 Interim Stay Order. If you wish to appeal the JRB’s Welding Service Inc v Family Division ,

2021 ABQB 298 decision, then you should conduct an appeal at the Alberta Court of Appeal. I remind you that your deadline to make a Written Submission of up to ten pages in length is April 30, 2021. [ 9 ] The deadline for the Written Submission set in JRB’s #4 has passed. Nothing more has been received from the Applicants. However, on May 3, 2021, Mr. Brymer appeared at the Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench counter, and demanded that the Clerks return to him documents he had filed in this Action. When that demand was refused, Mr.

Brymer became disruptive, and was then removed from the Edmonton Law Courts by the Sheriffs. [ 10 ] Since the Applicants have not submitted a Written Submission, I conclude the Applicants have not rebutted the fatal defects identified in JRB’s #4 . Pursuant to r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 and CPN7, para 3(c), Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Action No. 2103 03737 is struck out as an abuse of the Court. [ 11 ] When an action is terminated pursuant to the CPN7 process, the usual practice of this Court is to award costs in favour of the litigant who referred the matter to the Court: e.g.

Ahad v Calgary Housing Company , 2020 ABQB 450 at para 9 ; Phillips v Kenney , 2020 ABQB 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. I note that the astronomically large sums sought in this matter (“nonillions”, JRB’s #4 at para 21) mean the default presumptive costs award should be calculated on the highest column of

Schedule C of the Alberta Rules of Court . [ 12 ] Further, the Applicants have previously initiated legal proceedings that are, at a minimum, related to and overlap with the now terminated “Application”: • JRB’s Welding Services Inc v Family Division , 2020 ABQB 126 , struck out pursuant to CPN7 in 2020 ABQB 468 ( JRB’s #2 ), and • JRB’s Welding Services Inc v Family Division , 2021 ABQB 52 ( JRB’s #3 ), that rejected a “Demands Application” that the Applicants sought to file in the Action that was terminated by JRB’s #2 . [ 13 ] The Application is therefore the third occasion in which the Applicants have targeted largely the same opposing parties with blatantly abusive litigation that has inflicted unnecessary costs and wastage to the opposing parties and Court, alike.

The Applicants are engaged in a persistent pattern of abuse of court processes that cannot be effectively case managed by the Court because the Applicants simply ignore procedures and file whatever they like, such as the highly irregular JRB’s #3 Demands Application and the April 21, 2021 Dispute documents. [ 14 ] Given this pattern of persistent abusive litigation that ignores court procedure, I conclude that elevated costs are warranted in response to the Application.

I order the Applicants pay the Respondents RCMP, CRA, and Canadian Department of Justice $1,500 each, for a total of $4,500, forthwith. [ 15 ] I very strongly caution the Applicants that continued abuse of the Court and re-litigation of the same purported claims and demands may lead to further steps to regulate the Applicant’s access to the Court. [ 16 ] Counsel for the RCMP, CRA, and Canadian Department of Justice will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision. The Applicants’ approval of the Order is not required pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . This Decision and the corresponding 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 10 th ay of May, 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