JRB’s Welding Services Inc v Family Division, 2021 ABQB 52

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: JRB’s Welding Services Inc v Family Division, 2021 ABQB 52 Date: 20210122 Docket: 2003 00890 Registry: Edmonton Between: JRB’s Welding Services Inc. and Jeremiah Roy Brymer Applicants - and - Family Division, MEP, Fix & Smith law, AISH, Alberta Services Canada (CPP-D), JRB’s WSI 13.12, RCMP Evansburg Detachment, CRA, Boilermakers 146/BNBF Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G.

Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On January 13, 2020, JRB’s Welding Services Inc. and Jeremiah Roy Brymer (the Applicants) filed a Statement of Claim naming the Defendants listed in the style of cause. That Statement of Claim was referred to the Court as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7) ( JRB’s Welding Services Inc. v Family Division , 2020 ABQB 126 ( JRB’s #1 )), and subsequently struck out as an abuse of the Court ( JRB’s Welding Services Inc. v Family Division , 2020 ABQB 468 ( JRB’s #2 )).

[ 2 ] The docket 2003 00890 lawsuit was stayed by JRB’s #1 at para 24, and any related filings were directed to me as the justice conducting the CPN7 process. On January 11, 2021, it came to my attention that a 20-page document entitled “Demands Application” had been submitted to the Court in relation to docket 2003 00890.

The parties to the Demands Application are not the same as in the original 2003 00890 action: • “Applicants, Plaintiffs, Creditors” - “JRB’s Welding Service Inc/JRB’s Outfitting, Welding and Mechanical Dynasty Inc./Jeremiah Roy Brymer” (the New Applicants); and • “Respondents, Defendants, Debtors” - “Family Division, MEP, Fix & Smith law, AISH, CPP-D, JRB’s WSI 13.12, RCMP, CRA, Boilermakers, Air Liquid, CRS Towing, AHRC, CHRC, Department of Justice, Stony Plain Provincial Court, Media”. [ 3 ] The Demands Application is not readily summarized, since that document is unorthodox in many ways.

For example, the Applicant, Jeremiah Roy Brymer (Mr. Brymer), indicates that the “Respondents, Defendants, Debtors” will appear in Special Chambers before him and Master Summers. [ 4 ] Mr. Brymer, who is apparently the author of the Demands Application, purports to dictate certain outcomes of the Demands Application, for example at para 7: I am dismissing the 5131.31 owed to CRA and any incurred interest. Jeremiah Roy Brymer is tax exempt from CRA for life.

Diplomatic Immunity. [ 5 ] The Demands Application states the New Applicants are due $75 million in “Punitive plus Exemplary and Monetary” damages from “ Corrupt, terrorizing, tyranny, communistic, illegal, harassing and Discrimination tort-feasors ” (emphasis in original). [ 6 ] Mr. Brymer also appears to disagree with the outcome of JRB’s #2 , and perhaps more, since Mr.

Brymer complains at para 20 about: The illegal striking of the law suit and illegal costs order, numerous illegal dismissals by the family division, the illegal circus/drama show known as provincial court, rejections from AISH, rejections from AHRC, CHRC, Provincial Court and Media illegal garnishing of my CPP disability, the all around illegal circus drama joke freak shit show known as the government, which includes and not limited to illegal politicians, judges, lawyers and cops, illegally forced involvement with MEP. (Sic.) [ 7 ] Other elements of the Demands Application complain about interactions with law enforcement that relate to motor vehicles, a range of alleged injuries, and discrimination by various government and private actors.

Some Demands Application allegations, such as against Air Liquide in relation to return of gas cylinders, were not present in the original litigation. [ 8 ] The Demands Application also complains about court proceedings that occurred after JRB’s #2 was released on August 14, 2020: Stony Plain Provincial Court did not follow the law and violated many statutes that directly affects me personally.

The result was: The criminal communist scumbag that sits in a chair dictating at Stony Plan Provincial court fined me for a fail to appear in Evansburg Provincial Court when I appeared there on September 28 2020 not only that the Evansburg RCMP was served with my law suit. The criminal communist scumbag that sits in a chair dictating at Stony Plain Provincial court also fined me for driving while unauthorized.

My statement and the results are attached in Exhibits B of the affidavit of records I have struck the results off in the reply because it means absolutely nothing except for the pain and suffering caused willfully. (Sic.) [ 9 ] Beyond its unusual content, the Demands Application has a deeper issue. The docket 2003 00890 action was struck out on August 14, 2020. The final Order which concluded that matter was signed and filed on August 31, 2020. That means that this Court is functus . [ 10 ] One of the limited instances where a decision may be re-opened is pursuant to r 9.13(

b) of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 : 9.13(

b) At any time before a judgment or order is entered, the Court may ... on application, and if the Court is satisfied there is good reason to do so, hear more evidence and change or modify its judgment or order or reasons for it. [ 11 ] The Demands Application on a number of occasions references r 9.13(

b) as follows: The law suit has been struck and the illegal misconduct will be exposed on national TV that's how stupid the illegal government is. It will be my honor, duty, pleasure and privilege to report the illegal government filth to the nation with expert witness testimony which includes and not limited to illegal self righteous, self centered, and self contained politicians, judges, lawyers and cops. I will then re- open the case under rule 9.13(b). I am damaged for life.

My gut tells me that my constitutional charter rights to media communications are being violated because I served the media on September 10 2020. You people really know how to make me sick. (Sic.) [ 12 ] The New Applicants are too late to avail themselves of r 9.13(

b) since both a judgment and order were entered in August of 2020. In addition, I conclude, to the degree that the Demands Application is an application to “hear more evidence and change or modify its judgment or order or reasons”, that the New Applicants have failed to provide a “good reason” for the Court to revisit JRB’s #1 and JRB’s #2 . The New Applicants have not provided affidavit evidence to support a r 9.13(

b) application. The New Applicants have not

identified an error or omission in the previous decisions. Instead, the New Applicants advance an open-ended demand to litigate against an undefined set of parties. [ 13 ] I therefore dismiss the Demands Application. The Demands Application will not be filed and only will be placed on the 2003 00890 file to provide the documentary foundation for this Memorandum of Decision.

This Memorandum of Decision may be served upon the New Applicants via email to the jbrymer1977@gmail.com address indicated on the Demands Application. [ 14 ] Mindful of my obligation to provide information to self-represented litigants as indicated in Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 , if the Applicants (or New Applicants) seek to challenge the result in JRB’s #1 , JRB’s #2 , or this decision, then they should file an appeal with the Alberta Court of Appeal. Action 2003 00890 is terminated and completed. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta thi s 21 st day of January, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: None