Plaintiff claims injuries from defendant dismantling a corn crib on plaintiff's property
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck the defendant's statement of defence in a personal injury case due to persistent non-compliance and attempts to evade legal responsibilities.
The dispute in Luckhardt v. DeVries, 2024 ONSC 3302 revolves around injuries the plaintiff claims to have sustained when the defendant dismantled a corn crib on the plaintiff’s property in August 2015. Despite the court’s strong preference to resolve disputes on their merits, the defendant's persistent non-compliance has led to this drastic measure.
The defendant initially requested the motion to be heard in person, asserting the need to be seen "eyeball to eyeball." However, he attended the hearing via Zoom, explaining his request had been denied, contrary to the court's understanding. Throughout the proceedings, he insisted on being addressed only as "John" rather than his full surname, as indicated in the legal documents.
The court noted a long history of the defendant's refusal to engage meaningfully in the litigation. Originally represented by counsel, he later renounced his birth certificate and claimed he was not a legal "person" under Ontario law. Following this, his counsel withdrew, and he failed to appoint new representation or act in person, leading to further complications and delays.
In December 2021, the defendant's third-party claim against his insurer was dismissed due to non-compliance, and he missed several court dates. The plaintiff then served a motion to strike the defence. Although the motion was withdrawn when the defendant indicated a willingness to participate, he again failed to appear in court, leading to a trial date being set for October and a pre-trial date for June.
Further complicating matters, the defendant ignored an order to fulfil discovery undertakings and pay $2,000 in costs. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's extensive non-compliance and disregard for court orders had made it impossible to progress the case.
The defendant's submissions to the court, totalling 147 pages, and his oral arguments reiterated his stance that he was not subject to Canadian laws, which he referred to as "foreign." He claimed his natural rights exempted him from legal obligations and denied liability for the plaintiff’s injuries.
The Superior Court found the defendant’s behaviour and submissions indicative of a strategy to evade legal responsibilities by creating fictional interpretations of the law. This approach, the court noted, only served to delay proceedings and increase costs.
Given the defendant’s long-standing non-compliance and lack of intention to rectify his behaviour, the court concluded that striking his statement of defence was the only appropriate remedy.
