2023 FC, 2023 FC 1395

Date: 20231020 Docket: T-579-23 Citation: 2023 FC 1395 Vancouver, British Columbia, October 20, 2023 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.

Justice Lafrenière BETWEEN: BYRON BRUISED HEAD (ENGLISH NAME), ALSO KNOWN AS MATSOKITOPI (BLACKFOOT NAME) Plaintiff and HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (“CANADA” OR “INAC”), THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT CANADA, AND ITS AGENTS CHIEF ROY FOX AND BLOOD BAND COUNCIL, BLOOD TRIBE LAND MANAGEMENT (BTLM), BLOOD TRIBE POLICE SERVICE (BTPS), BLOOD TRIBE AGRICULTURAL PROJECT (BTAP), KAINAI FORAGE LP, WALSH LLP Defendants ORDER AND REASONS [ 1 ] These reasons are set out in plain language as the target audience is not the Defendants, members of the legal profession, or academics, but rather the Plaintiff, who is representing himself.

I. Overview [ 2 ] On March 23, 2023, the Plaintiff commenced the underlying action by filing a Statement of Claim that comprises 340 paragraphs with numerous subparagraphs.

It is more than 50 pages in length and names the following Defendants: • Chief Roy Fox and Blood Band Council, Blood Tribe Land Management and Blood Tribe Agricultural Project [together the Blood Tribe Defendants]; • Blood Tribe Police Service [BTPS]; • Kainai Forage LLP [Kainai Forage]; • Walsh LLP [Walsh]; and • His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada [together Canada]. [ 3 ] The Defendants other than BTPS [the moving Defendants] have moved to strike out the Statement of Claim as against them pursuant to Rule 221(1) of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106 , without leave to amend, on the basis that the pleading either: (

a) fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action ( paragraph 221(1) (a)); (

b) is immaterial or redundant ( paragraph 221(1) (b)); (

c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious ( paragraph 221(1) (c)); or (

d) is otherwise an abuse of this Court’s process ( paragraph 221(1) (f)). [ 4 ] The Plaintiff was directed to serve and file a responding motion record by October 2, 2023; however, he did not deign to do so, choosing instead to take issue with the Court’s Directions and complain that the Court is favouring the Defendants, is biased and prejudiced, and is denying him procedural fairness. All of these complaints have been addressed in previous Directions and nothing more need be said of them. II.

Analysis [ 5 ] The specific reasons for striking the Statement of Claim as against each of the moving Defendants are amply set forth in their respective written representations and I see no useful purpose in repeating them here. [ 6 ] Suffice it to say that I find all of the moving Defendants’ arguments to be well founded. The Statement of Claim should be struck out in its entirety, as this Court, which is a court of statutory jurisdiction, does not have jurisdiction over the private entities named as Defendants.

This Court also does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim, which at its core is a private dispute between the Plaintiff and the Blood Tribe Defendants arising out of the impoundment of the Plaintiff’s horses in February 2022. [ 7 ] As for Canada, the Statement of Claim does not assert that Canada had any involvement in the private dispute, nor does it assert any

involvement by Canada in the leadership or governance of the Blood Tribe, which is an independent Band established pursuant to the Indian Act , RSC, 1985, c. I-5 , the Blood Tribe’s employees, or the other disparate entities named in the pleading, who may be related to the dispute. The pleading wholly fails to disclose any cause of action against Canada that this Court could entertain. [ 8 ] I further find that the Statement of Claim is fundamentally vexatious.

The Statement of Claim makes grandiose complaints of injury and damage and bald assertions without particulars, providing no basis for a meaningful response. While facts pleaded must generally be accepted as proved, this Court is not required to accept facts that are patently ridiculous, incapable of proof, bare allegations, based on assumptions and speculation, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious, or legal submissions dressed up as factual allegations.

Given the wide- ranging, rambling, and often indecipherable nature of the entire pleading, the Defendants and the Court are left to speculate as to the circumstances that are alleged to ground a claim against the Defendants.

This action would prove to be an unmanageable proceeding both from the point of view of the Defendants to be able to plead intelligently to and from the point of view of the Court to oversee and manage it. [ 9 ] Moreover, even if one could discern a scintilla of a cause of action against any of the Defendants that is within this Court’s jurisdiction in the jumble of words put together in the Statement of Claim, the pleading should nevertheless be struck as an abuse of process because it is clearly duplicative of another action brought by the Plaintiff that is currently before this Court in Court File No.

T- 1162-22. Although the pleadings filed by the Plaintiff in T-1162-22 were not attached as an exhibit to an affidavit, I am satisfied that they can properly be considered in disposing of the present motions as “[t]he Court has at all times the power to look at its own records and take notice of their contents”: R v Hunt , [1986), 18 OAC 78 (ONCA), at para 79 . [ 10 ] I recognize that the allegations made by the Plaintiff in the 2022 proceeding and those in the present proceeding are not identical; however, there is significant and substantive overlap in both content and issues.

What is different in the present Statement of Claim is that the Plaintiff has added Walsh as well as Canada as Defendants. There are a number of new allegations, including that all of the Defendants “may be classified as federal employers or employees or are otherwise agents for the Crown or competing Tribe bands”. However, the allegations of conspiracies connecting Canada and other Defendants are bare and speculative, and must be seen for what they are – nothing more than a subterfuge by the Plaintiff in a vain attempt to bring the present action under s. 17(5) (

b) of the Federal Courts Act , RSC 1985, c F-7 . III. Conclusion [ 11 ] Being substantially in agreement with the written representations filed on behalf of the moving Defendants, I conclude that the Statement of Claim should be struck. There being neither a possibility of a curative amendment, nor any indication that the action could be instituted again in an acceptable form, the Statement of Claim shall be struck out, without leave to amend. IV. Costs [ 12 ] The moving Defendants have requested costs of their respective motion.

I see no reason in this case to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. In exercising discretion as to an appropriate costs award, it is relevant to take into account “the result of the proceeding,” “any conduct of a party that tended to shorten or lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding” and “whether any step in the proceeding was improper, vexatious or unnecessary”: Rule 400. [ 13 ] One of the legitimate functions of an award of costs is to discourage frivolous and unnecessary litigation. Doing so in the proper case enhances access to the justice system for other litigants.

In light of the Plaintiff’s conduct, which I find to be both vexatious and abusive, I exercise my discretion to award elevated costs to each of the moving Defendants in the fixed amount of $1,500.00. ORDER IN T-579-23 THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The Defendants’ motions are granted. 2. The Statement of Claim is struck, without leave to amend. 3. The Plaintiff shall pay the costs of each moving Defendants’ motion, fixed for each motion in the amount of $1,500.00, inclusive of disbursements and taxes. Blank “Roger R. Lafrenière" Blank Judge FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-579-23 STYLE OF CAUSE: BYRON BRUISED HEAD (ENGLISH NAME), ALSO KNOWN AS MATSOKITOBI (BLACKFOOT NAME) v HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (“CANADA” OR “INAC”), THE MINISTER OF INIDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT CANADA, AND ITS AGENTS AND CHIEF ROY FOX AND BLOOD BAND COUNCIL, BLOOD TRIBE LAND MANAGEMENT (BTLM), BLOOD TRIBE POLICE SERVICE (BTPS), BLOOD TRIBE AGRICULTURAL PROJECT (BTAP), KAINAI FORAGE LP AND WALSH, LLP MOTIONS IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: LAFRENIÈRE J.

DATED: October 20, 2023 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY : Byron Bruised Head (English Name), AKA Matsokitobi (Blackfoot Name) For The Plaintiff (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) Wayne Malcolm Schafer, KC For The Defendants/ HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (“CANADA” OR “INAC”), THE MINISTER OF INIDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT CANADA, AND ITS AGENTS Paul D.

Reid For The Defendants/ CHIEF ROY FOX AND BLOOD BAND COUNCIL, BLOOD TRIBE LAND MANAGEMENT (BTLM), BLOOD TRIBE POLICE SERVICE (BTPS), BLOOD TRIBE AGRICULTURAL PROJECT (BTAP) Tamara Prince FOR THE DEFENDANT/ KAINAI FORAGE LP Keltie Lambert FOR THE DEFENDANT/ WALSH, LLP SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Edmonton, Alberta For The Defendants/ HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (“CANADA” OR “INAC”), THE MINISTER OF INIDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT CANADA, AND ITS AGENTS Walsh, LLP Calgary, Alberta For The Defendants/ CHIEF ROY FOX AND BLOOD BAND COUNCIL, BLOOD TRIBE LAND MANAGEMENT (BTLM), BLOOD TRIBE POLICE SERVICE (BTPS), BLOOD TRIBE AGRICULTURAL PROJECT (BTAP)

Cassels Brock & Blackwell, LLP Calgary, Alberta FOR THE DEFENDANT/ KAINAI FORAGE LP Witten, LLP Edmonton, Alberta FOR THE DEFENDANT/ WALSH, LLP