Shawn Cordale Penney Plaintiff And: GOVERNMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND v. LABRADOR, 2020 NLSC 46

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : Penney v. Newfoundland and Labrador , 2020 NLSC 46 Date : March 13, 2020 Docket : 201901G2743 Between: Shawn Cordale Penney Plaintiff And: GOVERNMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR DEFENDANT And: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA DEFENDANT Before: Justice Garrett A. Handrigan Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Date of Hearing: March 9, 2020

Summary: Shawn Cordale Penney issued a statement of claim in this Court against the Governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada, claiming disparate relief. He neglected to obtain leave to issue the claim, despite being ordered to do so by a judge of this Court on February 5, 2019. Another judge stayed his claim on April 24, 2019 and he applied on May 1, 2019 for leave to continue the proceeding.

The Court dismissed Mr. Penney’s application for leave. It found that Mr. Penney’s action was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. It defined a procedure for Mr. Penney to follow if he wished to start or continue other proceedings in the future and it ordered him to pay forthwith, a lump sum of $1,000 costs to each defendant. It also directed that the name, The Attorney General of Canada, replace the name, the Government of Canada in any pleading or document filed in the matter. Appearances: Shawn Cordale Penney Appearing on his own behalf Mark P.

Sheppard Appearing on behalf of the First Defendant Heidi Collicutt Appearing on behalf of the Second Defendant Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: Olumide v. Thompson Reuters , 2019 ONSC 997 ; Lindhorst v. Centennial College , 2016 ONSC 2678 ; Bursey v. Bursey (1966), 51 N.P.R. 256, 1966 CarswellNfld 4 (Nfld. S.C.) ; Peacock v. Bell and Kendal (1667), 1 Wms. Saund. 73, 85 E.R. 84 ; Steiner v. R ., [1996] F.C.J. No. 1356 STATUTES CONSIDERED: Courts of Justice Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43 ; Crown Liability and Proceedings Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.

C-50 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Handrigan, J. : INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On February 15, 2019, Faour, J. of this Court, in causes numbered 201705G0159 & 201805G0026, ordered that “Shawn Cordale Penney may not commence any further proceedings in this Court without first obtaining leave of a Justice of this Court”. Mr. Penney defied Faour, J.’s order less than two months later when, on April 9, 2019 he filed a statement of claim suing the Governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada, without first obtaining leave of a Justice of this Court.

This Court, of its own motion, stayed these proceedings on April 24, 2019, “without prejudice to Mr. Penney’s ability to seek leave to commence any further proceedings”. [ 2 ] Mr. Penney filed an interlocutory application on May 1, 2019 asking “…leave of the court to proceed with administration of justice” in this matter. Mr. Penney intended to proceed ex parte on his interlocutory application until Butler, J. (then of this Court) directed that Mr. Penney should serve both Governments with a copy of his application so they might appear when the application was heard.

He filed an application for leave ( inter partes ) on August 19, 2019 and served it as directed. I heard Mr. Penney’s application for leave on March 9, 2020 and reserved my ruling until now. The Issue [ 3 ] Should Shawn Penney have leave to proceed against the Attorneys-General of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada? The Law Statute [ 4 ] This Province has neither statute nor regulation that governs how litigants who have been ordered to obtain leave to start proceedings in court, may obtain leave. For example, section 140(1) of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.

C-43 (the “ Act ”) which deals with “vexatious proceedings” provides: 140(1) Where a judge of the Superior Court of Justice is satisfied, on application, that a person has persistently and without reasonable grounds,

(

a) instituted vexatious proceedings in any court; or (

b) conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner, the judge may order that, (

c) no further proceeding be instituted by the person in any court; or (

d) a proceeding previously instituted by the person in any court not be continued, except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. [ 5 ] Section 140(4) of the Act sets out the factors a court will consider if the person, otherwise prohibited from bringing proceedings, applies for leave. It provides: 140(4) Where an application for leave is made under subsection (3), (

a) leave shall be granted only if the court is satisfied that the proceeding sought to be instituted or continued is not an abuse of process and that there are reasonable grounds for the proceeding; (

b) the person making the application for leave may seek the rescission of the order made under subsection (1) but may not seek any other relief on the application; (

c) the court may rescind the order made under subsection (1); (

d) the Attorney General is entitled to be heard on the application; and (

e) no appeal lies from a refusal to grant relief to the applicant. [ 6 ] Subsection 140(5) preserves the inherent authority of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to deal with vexatious proceedings, regardless of statute. It reads: 140(5) Nothing in this

section limits the authority of a court to stay or dismiss a proceeding as an abuse of process on any other ground. Case Law [ 7 ] Favreau, J. applied section 140(3) of the Act in Olumide v. Thompson Reuters , 2019 ONSC 997 . She adopted from Lindhorst v. Centennial College , 2016 ONSC 2678 the test a court should use when applying the section: The test is not merely whether the applicant has conceptually an arguable case.

The applicant must proffer evidence and not mere allegations to support the proposition that there is an evidentiary basis for the relief claimed in the proposed proceeding. ( Lindhorst , paragraph 4 , quoted in Olumide , paragraph 5 ) [ 8 ] She also noted in paragraph 6 of Lindhorst “…that the history of an applicant who has been declared a vexatious litigant is relevant to the determination of whether leave should granted to institute a new proceeding”. [ 9 ] Favreau, J. rejected Mr. Olumide’s application for several reasons: 14. First, the application fails to coherently set out the nature of the claim Mr.

Olimude proposes to bring against the respondents, and the grounds that support such a claim. Besides lacking any cohesiveness, the claim against the proposed respondents is not supported by any evidence, which, as reviewed above, is a requirement established by the case law.

15. Second, while Mr. Olumide purports to seek permission to bring a constitutional challenge on the basis of a number of Charter provisions, his materials do not articulate how his proposed claim engages Charter rights, nor does he provide any evidentiary basis in support of these alleged violations. 16. Third, while ostensibly seeking leave to proceed with a claim against the respondents, the focus of Mr. Olumide's application is his disagreement with a ruling previously made by Hackland J. staying this proceeding on the basis that Mr.

Olumide had failed to obtain leave of the Court pursuant to section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act before it was instituted. … [ 10 ] As I noted above, this Province does not have a statutory scheme for dealing with vexatious proceedings as does Ontario. However, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to manage its own process is deep and it reflects the authority that the legislature gives to Ontario courts in

section 140 of the Act , as Favreau, J. applied it in Olumide . [ 11 ] I note, for example, what Furlong, C. J. said about the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in Bursey v. Bursey (1966), 51 N.P.R. 256, 1966 CarswellNfld 4 (Nfld. S.C.) in which he cited the ancient case of Peacock v. Bell and Kendal (1667), 1 Wms.

Saund. 73, 85 E.R. 84 : And the rule for jurisdiction is, that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a Superior Court, but that which specially appears to be so; and, on the contrary, nothing shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction of an inferior Court but that which is so expressly alleged. [ 12 ] He added, at page 261: I can only say then, that in my opinion the jurisdiction of this Court [the Supreme Court of Newfoundland] is sufficiently ample for it to dispose of matters which come before it and which the Court is not specifically forbidden to consider. [ 13 ] In the absence of statute or regulation to the contrary, I find this Court has jurisdiction to require Mr.

Penney to obtain leave to start new proceedings or to continue ongoing matters and has jurisdiction to deal with Mr. Penney’s application for leave. Here, I draw on the inherent authority of this Court that Furlong, C.J. recognized in Bursey . I will, however, take guidance from the Ontario legislation as Favreau, J. applied it in Olumide . I turn now to analyze the issue I stated above, starting with the background to it. Analysis Background [ 14 ] Mr. Penney filed a 17-page statement of claim (without leave) in this Court on April 9, 2019.

He named himself as Plaintiff and the Governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada as Defendants. Mr. Penney’s statement of claim is a rambling, incoherent document that starts out by saying in paragraph 1 that the “action is framed in negligence and vicarious liability” and meanders through another 84 paragraphs before setting out in paragraph 86 the relief that Mr.

Penney is seeking. [ 15 ] I note, in particular, that he asks for: a declaration that the defendants were negligent in failing to implement adequate policies, negligent with objects of Centre for human rights and its Mandate, in accordance with its national, international and domestic obligations; [ 16 ] As well as: a declaration that the defendants are in breach of its/their international obligations and duties and that, the defendants lack of supervision permitted discrimination, bullying and harassment and thus abrogate, abridge or infringed upon Human Rights of plaintiff during its (crown) interaction with plaintiff in his (plaintiff) civil, political, economical, social and cultural institutional rights and freedoms custom to rule of law. [ 17 ] Mr.

Penney also asks for general damages “…of $50,000,000 or such other sum as this Honourable Court deems just, plus damages equal to the costs of administering the plan of distribution of the recovery in this action”. Finally, Mr. Penney asks for “punitive damages in the amount of $10,000,000.00” and “special damages in an amount to be determined”. Mr.

Penney’s proposed statement of claim provides no factual footings to support the pages of alleged failures that he ascribes to the defendant governments that he names as defendants, and to at least one other provincial government that he refers to in various paragraphs. [ 18 ] On April 24, 2019, Butler, J., then of this Court, as I noted above stayed proceedings on the statement of claim, pending Mr. Penney’s application for leave to continue with it. [ 19 ] This is the background to Mr. Penney’s application for leave. I turn now to discuss the issue that I stated earlier in these reasons.

Discussion [ 20 ] Counsel for both defendants submit that Mr. Penney’s statement of claim is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the process of this Court. Counsel for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular, refers to Mr. Penney as an “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Litigant”, better known by the acronym, OPCA. Counsel relies on this excerpt from paragraph 4 of Mr. Penney’s statement of claim to support his belief:

The right to seeking lawful Self determination is an individual right and the rule of law domestically, nationally and internationally … The right of individual Shawn Cordale Penney to self determination status and/or de jure [persona] is a reality in rule of law. [ 21 ] Quite frankly, I have no idea what Mr. Penney means when he uses that terminology (and his statement of claim is replete with it) but Mr. Penney is asserting rights that are completely unknown to me and alleging harms that are equally unfamiliar. [ 22 ] Mr. Penney has a history of such actions.

The Provincial Government submitted an affidavit from Stephen Mills to support its opposition to Mr. Penney’s leave application. Mr. Mills identifies himself as a “Policy, Planning and Research Analyst with the Department of Justice and Public Safety”. He compiled a series of exhibits that he attached to his affidavit that show numerous applications, some in first instance and some amended, as well as copies of orders that justices of this Court have issued in proceedings that Mr. Penney started in this Court in the last two and a half years.

The applications are as follows: Date Application Relief Sought Disposition December 28, 2017 Originating Application - 201705G0159 Order preventing provincial government from interfering with common-law affairs; and other orders. Dismissed by Faour, J. on February 5, 2019 May 17, 2018 Amended Originating Application – 2018O5G0026 Raises constitutional questions as they apply to “Registered Child of birth Shawn Cordale Penney standing under Full Legal Capacity”; and also asks for other orders. Dismissed by Faour, J. on February 5, 2019 August 8, 2018 Amended Application – 201801G4733/201805G0145.

The file was created in St. John’s but transferred to Gander. Seeking orders directing governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador “to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect and safeguard the life, liberties, rights, freedoms and securities recognized in the present Covenant to birth right Shawn Cordale Penney 002512”; and other orders. Dismissed by Faour, J. on February 5, 2019 August 8, 2018 Amended Application – 201801G4734/201805G0146 The file was created in St. John’s but transferred to Gander.

Seeking orders directing governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador “to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect and safeguard the life, liberties, rights, freedoms and securities recognized in the present Covenant to birth right Shawn Cordale Penney 002512”; and other orders. Dismissed by Faour, J. on February 5, 2019 July 26, 2018 Originating Application – 201803G0113 Seeking “Injunctive relief for Claim of right birth registration 002512 Shawn, Cordale Penney in his full legal capacity; rights, freedoms and privileges to be recognized”; and other orders.

Dismissed by Goulding, J. on October 16, 2018 August 13, 2018 Originating Application – 201801G5390 Seeking an order requiring the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to give “immediate release Shawn Cordale Penney personal property”; and other orders. Dismissed by Hurley, J. on November 26, 2018. April 9, 2019 Statement of Claim – 201901G2743 (Present proceeding, started without leave.) Seeking declaratory relief, general damages of $50,000,000, punitive damages of $10,000,000 and special damages to be determined.

Stayed by Butler, J. on April 24, 2019 pending leave of the Court; applied for leave on May 1, 2019. [ 23 ] In Olumide , Favreau, J. stated the test for determining whether a proceeding is vexatious or an abuse of process: 5. … The test is not whether the applicant has conceptually an arguable case. The applicant must proffer evidence and not mere allegations to support the proposition that there is an evidentiary basis for the relief claimed in the proposed proceeding. [ 24 ] I cannot say from reading Mr. Penney’s statement of claim that he has an arguable case.

As I noted earlier, I have great difficulty in understanding what Mr. Penney puts forward to support his claim. It lacks logic, it is rambling and incoherent and it does not state any cause of action known to law. [ 25 ] I note, for example, under the heading, “THE FACTS” from paragraph 3 of the statement of claim, Mr. Penney says that both defendant governments and their “agents’ servants and employees” “…condoned discrimination, bullying and harassment by its

individual agents, servants and employees’ and thereby violated individual rights of plaintiff herein”. However, Mr. Penney offers no facts to support this claim, nor does he say which of his rights the defendants violated by this behaviour. [ 26 ] His allegations are conclusory, he does not support them, and he assumes that we will accept his claims without more.

For example, he says in paragraph 7 of this statement of claim that the defendant governments: did at all times material 1999 to present commit wrongful acts, omissions, failed its delegation of fiduciary responsibility, inadequate supervision and chronic deprivation and/or did at all time abrogate, abridge or infringe upon those rights and freedoms of individual Shawn Cordale Penney. [ 27 ] Yet, Mr.

Penney does not say which of his rights and freedoms the governments “abrogated, abridged or infringed”; nor does he offer any evidence to say how the governments breached those rights or freedoms or how those alleged breaches affected him at all; and, in particular, he fails to say how any breaches contributed to the general damages of $50,000,000 that he claims he suffered. [ 28 ] As I noted earlier, Mr. Penney’s statement of claim runs to 16 pages, including 86 single-spaced paragraphs.

Through the claim he repeatedly invokes violations of his rights and freedoms, he asks for redress and compensation and he alludes to violations of domestic, national and international law and various statutes and regulations. From paragraphs 8 to 63 he refers to specific dates on which he says various state authorities (the provinces, the federal government, the Law Society of Alberta, the RCMP, etc) violated the “International Bill of Human Rights” by “inadequate supervision and chronic depravation”. I assume that Mr.

Penney is referring to his “human rights” because he does not specify that it is him, but even then, he offers nothing specific against which to assess his claims. [ 29 ] Overall, it may be said of Mr. Penney’s statement of claim, to employ the language that Favreau, J. used in Olumide , that it is “conceptually” impossible for me to determine if he has an arguable case. [ 30 ] Favreau, J. also said in Olumide that that the history of an applicant who has been declared a vexatious litigant is relevant to the determination of whether leave to should granted to institute a new proceeding. Faour, J. found Mr.

Penney was a vexatious litigant when he dismissed four of Mr. Penney’s applications on February 5, 2019; as did Goulding, J. and Hurley, J. when they dismissed the other two of Mr. Penney’s applications on October 18, 2018 and November 26, 2018 respectively. [ 31 ] Faour, J. relied on sections 14.24(1) (a), (

b) and (

d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 , S.N.L. 1986, c. 42, Sch. D to dismiss the four of Mr. Penney’s applications that he dealt with on February 5, 2019. The rule reads, as to those parts: 14.24(1) The Court may at any stage of a proceeding order any pleading, affidavit or statement of facts, or anything therein to be struck or amended on the ground that (

a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence: (

b) it is false, scandalous, frivolous or vexations; …. (

d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. [ 32 ] Those paragraphs of Rule 14.24(1) encapsulate the problems with the statement of claim Mr. Penney wants to file in this case. By the claim he does not show that he has any cause of action; his allegations are not grounded in facts; and it will serve no one’s interest, including Mr. Penney’s, to grant leave and allow him to go forward with the claim. [ 33 ] The Federal Court of Canada described scandalous, frivolous and vexatious pleadings this way in Steiner v. R ., [1996] F.C.J. No. 1356 : 16.

A scandalous pleading includes one which improperly casts a derogatory light on someone, with respect to their moral character. A claim is a frivolous one where it is of little weight or importance or for which there is no rational argument based upon the evidence or law in support of the claim. A vexatious proceeding is one that is begun maliciously or without probable cause, or one which will not lead to any practical result. [ 34 ] Even a cursory reading of Mr. Penney’s statement of claim reveals that it exemplifies all of these attributes, and then some. [ 35 ] I am not persuaded by Mr.

Penney’s claims that his statement of claim has any merit and that he should be granted leave to pursue it in this Court. Accordingly, I dismiss his application for leave and strike out the statement of claim, which he filed without the leave that Faour, J. required him to have on February 5, 2019, before proceeding. [ 36 ] Counsel for both defendants, but counsel for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular, believes that I should state a rigorous process to control Mr. Penney’s access to this Court in the future. Counsel submits that Mr.

Penney’s history shows that he harbours a clear disregard, if not actual contempt for normal procedure and that he will continue to abuse the process of this Court unless he is controlled. [ 37 ] I agree with counsel. My earlier remarks, coupled with Mr. Penney’s disdain for orders this Court has issued to him in the past,

support counsel’s request that I take steps to limit Mr. Penney’s access to the Court, while not barring it completely. This is what counsel recommended for Mr. Penney and I adopt. To commence or continue any proceeding in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Penney shall submit an Application for Leave to a Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador who has been designated to receive the Application for consideration, on this basis: 1. Any application to commence or continue a proceeding shall be in writing. 2. Any application to commence or continue a proceeding shall be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the pleading, motion or process that Shawn Cordale Penney proposes to issue, file or continue;

b) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

c) indicating whether Mr. Penney has ever sued any or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or court, and, if so, providing full particulars;

d) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and

e) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding. 3. The designated judge may, but shall not be obliged to:

a) give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if they so choose, to: i. the potential parties; ii. other relevant persons identified by the Court; and iii. the Attorney-General of Newfoundland and Labrador and/or the Attorney-General of Canada.

b) respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and

c) hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded. 4. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs. 5. An application for leave that is dismissed may not be made again directly, or indirectly. 6. The staff of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador at the Registries in all court centres throughout the Province, and for greater certainty, at the Registries in St.

John’s, Grand Bank, Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, shall be advised of these conditions and shall discard any documents or other materials from Mr. Penney, unless they comply with the directions set out above. 7. Any fee waivers granted to Mr. Penney formerly are hereby revoked. Any future fee waiver requests will be considered with any motion for leave that Mr. Penney brings to commence or continue a proceeding . [ 38 ] Counsel for the Government of Canada notes that Mr. Penney improperly named her client.

She says, by reason of section 23 (1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50 , that proceedings against the Federal Crown, such as Mr. Penney’s statement of claim and his interlocutory application, must be taken against the Attorney General of Canada. I agree with counsel’s request and direct that in any pleading or document filed in this matter the name of the Government of Canada shall be replaced by the Attorney General of Canada. Costs [ 39 ] Counsel for both defendants request costs. In the result, I order that Mr. Penney pay forthwith $1,000 in costs to each defendant.

Summary and Disposition [ 40 ] Shawn Cordale Penney issued a statement of claim in this Court against the Governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada, claiming disparate relief. He neglected to obtain leave to issue the claim, despite being ordered to do so by a judge of this Court on February 5, 2019. Another judge stayed his claim on April 24, 2019 and he applied on May 1, 2019 for leave to continue the proceeding. [ 41 ] The Court dismissed Mr. Penney’s application for leave. It found that Mr. Penney’s action was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court.

It defined a procedure for Mr. Penney to follow if he wished to start or continue other proceedings in the future and it ordered him to pay forthwith, a lump sum of $1,000 costs to each defendant. It also directed that the name, The Attorney General of Canada, replace the name, the Government of Canada in any pleading or document filed in the matter. Order

[ 42 ] In the result, I order that: 1. Shawn Cordale Penney’s application for leave to continue a statement of claim in File No. 201901G2743 is dismissed. 2. Shawn Cordale Penney will pay forthwith to each of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Attorney General of Canada (otherwise referred to as the Government of Canada) lump sum costs of $1,000; 3. Shawn Cordale Penney will comply with the following protocol in the future if he wishes to start or continue any proceeding in this Court. 4. To commence or continue any proceeding in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.

Penney shall submit an Application for Leave to a Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador who has been designated to receive the Application for consideration, on this basis: 1. Any application to commence or continue a proceeding shall be in writing. 2.

Any application to commence or continue a proceeding shall be accompanied by an affidavit: a. attaching a copy of the pleading, motion or process that Shawn Cordale Penney proposes to issue, file or continue; b. deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it; c. indicating whether Mr.

Penney has ever sued any or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or court, and, if so, providing full particulars; d. undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and e. undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding. 3.

The designated judge may, but shall not be obliged to: a. give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if they so choose, to: i. the potential parties; ii. other relevant persons identified by the Court; and iii. the Attorney-General of Newfoundland and Labrador and/or the Attorney-General of Canada. b. respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and c. hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded. 4.

Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs. 5. An application for leave that is dismissed may not be made again directly, or indirectly. 6. The staff of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador at the Registries in all court centres throughout the Province, and for greater certainty, at the Registries in St. John’s, Grand Bank, Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook and Happy Valley- Goose Bay, shall be advised of these conditions and shall discard any documents or other materials from Mr.

Penney, unless they comply with the directions set out above. 7. Any fee waivers granted to Mr. Penney formerly are hereby revoked. Any future fee waiver requests will be considered with any motion for leave that Mr. Penney brings to commence or continue a proceeding. 8. In any pleading or document filed in this matter the name of the Government of Canada shall be replaced by the Attorney General of Canada _____________________________ Garrett A. Handrigan Justice