ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 79
The Federal Court resolved this abusive lawsuit
in a highly efficient manner. Potvin’s attempted
countermeasures were neatly contained by an alert
Registry. Belanger’s in-person attempts to intrude and
interfere were intercepted. By any measure, Potvin
and Belanger’s litigation strategy was a total failure.
However, this lawsuit was not the end of Potvin’s
retaliatory litigation in the Federal Court of Canada.
2. Potvin v Calgary Police Service, Federal
Court of Canada Docket No. T-638-18
Three months after initiating the T-83-18 action,
Potvin filed a second Federal Court statement of claim
(Potvin v Calgary Police Service, 2018a), now targeting
the Calgary Police Service, Alberta Sheriffs, and several
debt enforcement agencies. Potvin demanded $5
million in punitive damages, and an order prohibiting
the defendants from interacting with Potvin, his family,
and the Potvins’ residence. Although the statement
of claim advanced typical CERI Strawman Theory
demands, the majority of the document focuses on
Sovereign Citizen fractional banking theory claims
that banks create money out of nothing, including a
copied blog posting (Legalman, 2014), discussing the
notorious “Credit River” case (Netolitzky, 2019, p.
1177). Credit River is a fascinating exception to the
near universal pattern that pseudolaw strategies are
rejected in court. Briefly, in Credit River, the judge
concluded banks do not lend money, but create money
via fractional banking processes, so “loans” actually
involve no debts. However, Credit River is meaningless,
since the reasoning and result were rejected and
declared a nullity, and Credit River was a US court
action, and, therefore, of no real relevance in Canada.
The Alberta Sheriffs’ motion to strike the statement
of claim (Potvin v Calgary Police Service, 2018b)
was granted without personal appearances (Potvin
v Calgary Police Service, 2018c). The Prothonotary
concluded no material facts were pled, and that the
Federal Court had no jurisdiction over this matter
(Potvin v Calgary Police Service, 2018c).
Similar to T-83-18, this matter was resolved in a
highly efficient manner, particularly since no court
appearances were required to evaluate and terminate
this abusive proceeding. Notably, Potvin here is
switching to a non-CERI strategy, another illustration
of how CERI affiliations are stereotypically transient.
That shift in pseudolaw litigation orientation would
also manifest in Potvin’s third Federal Court action.
3. Potvin v Rooke, Federal Court of Canada
Docket No. T-1546-18, Potvin v Rooke, Federal
Court of Appeal Docket No. A-116-19
Potvin filed his next Federal Court statement of claim
on August 21, 2018, shortly after his first two lawsuits
were struck out (Potvin v Rooke, 2018a). Potvin now
targeted multiple Alberta and Federal Court judges,
court staff, the federal and Alberta Attorneys General,
and the Mayor of Calgary. The T-1546-18 statement of
claim exactly reproduces much of the text, formatting,
claims, and remedies of the Williams June 22, 2018
statement of claim (Rooke v Williams, 2020 FC 1070,
paras. 20-21). Williams, Potvin, and Belanger were
apparently now collaborators. The primary difference
between the two filings is the T-1546-18 Statement of
Claim describes the Potvin residence foreclosure as the
basis for the lawsuit.
The Federal Court’s response was swift. On September
20, 2018, Prothonotary Aalto designated Potvin’s
lawsuit as a “specially managed proceeding” (Potvin
v Rooke, 2018b). Further steps were prohibited until
a case management judge was assigned. Prothonotary
Ring was appointed in that role on October 23, 2018,
confirmed filing of motions to strike out Potvin’s action
and declare him a vexatious litigant, and timelines for
associated steps (Potvin v Rooke, 2018c).
Potvin responded with irregular correspondence
declaring various defects in the defendants’ filings,
and then a motion that Potvin had won by default:
a Strawman Theory claim that the true “private”
defendants had not taken any steps to defend
themselves. Prothonotary Ring rejected Potvin’s
attempts to pre-empt the motions to strike (Potvin v
Rooke, 2019a). Potvin then unsuccessfully attempted to
file more documents, including an ex parte injunction
motion. These were intercepted by the Registry and
refused filing (Potvin v Rooke, 2019b).
On March 1, 2019 Potvin was declared a vexatious
litigant without personal appearance (Potvin v Rooke,
2019c), because: 1) Potvin was relitigating settled
matters 2) Potvin’s range of litigation targets had
The Federal Court resolved this abusive lawsuit
in a highly efficient manner. Potvin’s attempted
countermeasures were neatly contained by an alert
Registry. Belanger’s in-person attempts to intrude and
interfere were intercepted. By any measure, Potvin
and Belanger’s litigation strategy was a total failure.
However, this lawsuit was not the end of Potvin’s
retaliatory litigation in the Federal Court of Canada.
2. Potvin v Calgary Police Service, Federal
Court of Canada Docket No. T-638-18
Three months after initiating the T-83-18 action,
Potvin filed a second Federal Court statement of claim
(Potvin v Calgary Police Service, 2018a), now targeting
the Calgary Police Service, Alberta Sheriffs, and several
debt enforcement agencies. Potvin demanded $5
million in punitive damages, and an order prohibiting
the defendants from interacting with Potvin, his family,
and the Potvins’ residence. Although the statement
of claim advanced typical CERI Strawman Theory
demands, the majority of the document focuses on
Sovereign Citizen fractional banking theory claims
that banks create money out of nothing, including a
copied blog posting (Legalman, 2014), discussing the
notorious “Credit River” case (Netolitzky, 2019, p.
1177). Credit River is a fascinating exception to the
near universal pattern that pseudolaw strategies are
rejected in court. Briefly, in Credit River, the judge
concluded banks do not lend money, but create money
via fractional banking processes, so “loans” actually
involve no debts. However, Credit River is meaningless,
since the reasoning and result were rejected and
declared a nullity, and Credit River was a US court
action, and, therefore, of no real relevance in Canada.
The Alberta Sheriffs’ motion to strike the statement
of claim (Potvin v Calgary Police Service, 2018b)
was granted without personal appearances (Potvin
v Calgary Police Service, 2018c). The Prothonotary
concluded no material facts were pled, and that the
Federal Court had no jurisdiction over this matter
(Potvin v Calgary Police Service, 2018c).
Similar to T-83-18, this matter was resolved in a
highly efficient manner, particularly since no court
appearances were required to evaluate and terminate
this abusive proceeding. Notably, Potvin here is
switching to a non-CERI strategy, another illustration
of how CERI affiliations are stereotypically transient.
That shift in pseudolaw litigation orientation would
also manifest in Potvin’s third Federal Court action.
3. Potvin v Rooke, Federal Court of Canada
Docket No. T-1546-18, Potvin v Rooke, Federal
Court of Appeal Docket No. A-116-19
Potvin filed his next Federal Court statement of claim
on August 21, 2018, shortly after his first two lawsuits
were struck out (Potvin v Rooke, 2018a). Potvin now
targeted multiple Alberta and Federal Court judges,
court staff, the federal and Alberta Attorneys General,
and the Mayor of Calgary. The T-1546-18 statement of
claim exactly reproduces much of the text, formatting,
claims, and remedies of the Williams June 22, 2018
statement of claim (Rooke v Williams, 2020 FC 1070,
paras. 20-21). Williams, Potvin, and Belanger were
apparently now collaborators. The primary difference
between the two filings is the T-1546-18 Statement of
Claim describes the Potvin residence foreclosure as the
basis for the lawsuit.
The Federal Court’s response was swift. On September
20, 2018, Prothonotary Aalto designated Potvin’s
lawsuit as a “specially managed proceeding” (Potvin
v Rooke, 2018b). Further steps were prohibited until
a case management judge was assigned. Prothonotary
Ring was appointed in that role on October 23, 2018,
confirmed filing of motions to strike out Potvin’s action
and declare him a vexatious litigant, and timelines for
associated steps (Potvin v Rooke, 2018c).
Potvin responded with irregular correspondence
declaring various defects in the defendants’ filings,
and then a motion that Potvin had won by default:
a Strawman Theory claim that the true “private”
defendants had not taken any steps to defend
themselves. Prothonotary Ring rejected Potvin’s
attempts to pre-empt the motions to strike (Potvin v
Rooke, 2019a). Potvin then unsuccessfully attempted to
file more documents, including an ex parte injunction
motion. These were intercepted by the Registry and
refused filing (Potvin v Rooke, 2019b).
On March 1, 2019 Potvin was declared a vexatious
litigant without personal appearance (Potvin v Rooke,
2019c), because: 1) Potvin was relitigating settled
matters 2) Potvin’s range of litigation targets had
