Judge refers lawyers to law society for notarizing ‘obvious pseudolaw’ documents
Justice John Rooke accuses Calgary area lawyers Terrance Taylor and Cody Melnyk of breaching their professional obligations
The associate chief justice of Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench has referred two lawyers to the provincial law society as part of the latest installment of his continuing takedown of Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument concepts.
In Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson, Justice John Rooke accused Calgary area lawyers Terrance Taylor and Cody Melnyk of breaching their professional obligations by notarizing documents that were “obviously OPCA in character” for the defendant in a foreclosure proceeding.
“As an officer of the Court, I am very troubled by the continuing issue that Alberta lawyers notarize and authenticate obvious pseudolaw documents. A lawyer who acts as a notary is still a lawyer interacting with their client, with the associated professional responsibilities. It is not for me to determine completely – the Law Society has the primary role to enforce sanctions against illegal or improper conduct by lawyers - but it appears that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Melnyk breached their responsibilities to Ms. Anderson, too, when they did not identify the obvious false pseudolaw in Ms. Anderson’s materials, and refused to engage further with her abusive court activities,” Justice Rooke wrote, adding that a copy of his decision would be delivered to the regulator.
Melnyk did not respond to a request for comment, while Taylor told Court Report Canada that he was shocked to read the associate chief justice’s ruling.
“Given that I have yet to hear from the Law Society as at the date of writing I will refrain from making any comment until I have had a chance to be heard,” Taylor added.
Justice Rooke’s landmark 2012 decision in Meads v. Meads is one of the most read decisions of the last decade, gaining traction around the world for its detailed dismantling of the concepts and tactics frequently employed by OPCA litigants in their attacks on the legitimacy of court proceedings. He has returned to the subject in a number of subsequent rulings on pseudolaw, which he describes as rules that “sound like law, and use legal language, but are false, ‘not-law.’”
In Anderson, Justice Rooke identified the defendant as a pseudolaw “guru” who teaches and repeatedly uses OPCA concepts such as the strawman theory – seeking to separate the physical person from their legal identity – in various legal proceedings since 2020. The judge had already declared her a vexatious litigant in a separate proceeding just weeks previously.
The more recent decision tackled the defendant’s response to RBC’s claim for foreclosure on her Calgary condo to satisfy a $160,000 debt. Among the documents she filed with the court were a “Statement of Defence in the form of an Affidavit” and an “Affidavit of Status and Fact,” each notarized by Melnyk that Justice Rooke described as “foisted unilateral agreements that make Strawman Theory claims, and demand documents and answers.”
In the documents, Justice Rooke notes that the defendant cited imaginary Biblical law, declared the loan to her was fake, and demanded the return of $67,000 in Visa payments because of the lack of “wet ink signatures” on the credit card contract.
Another document filed by Anderson and referenced by Justice Rooke – titled “AFFIDAVIT OF FACT” – was witnessed and notarized by Taylor.
The affidavit “is an obvious foisted unilateral agreement that purported to dictate a six-day deadline, or else Ms. Anderson wins and gets her ‘condo for free,’” Justice Rooke wrote. “This document is filled with absurd and inappropriate language. Its initial paragraph claims ‘God’s laws’ are ‘first and foremost.’ Ms. Anderson at paragraph 2 invokes Strawman Theory and claims Canadian law does not apply to her.”
The judge’s ruling references the Law Society of Alberta’s and his own previous warnings against notarizing or otherwise authenticating pseudolaw materials, noting that many OPCA litigants hold the “dangerous and erroneous belief” that notaries have greater authority than judges.
“And yet this pattern continues. Here, two Alberta lawyers have notarized Ms. Anderson’s materials that she then deployed against RBC and its lawyers,” Justice Rooke continued.
He concluded his judgment by denying the defendant leave to file her counterclaim against the bank and ordering her to pay a $10,000 penalty for misuse of court resources under Rule 10.49 of the Alberta Rules of Court.
Follow us on Twitter @CourtReportCA
Story tips or comments to CourtReportCanada@gmail.com