Lionel (et al),

Thanks to Rob Chambers who brought Joly v. Pelletier to my attention a  

few years ago, I included it in my Civil Procedure reading materials.

I gather from David Cheifetz, however, that the facts were not exactly  

as recounted by the Court.  Apparently, Mr. Joly was alleging not that  

he is a Martian, but that he is a Marsean (sp?) - which apparently  

denotes only partial Martian DNA.

Or do I not have that quite right, David?

Russ

Quoting "Lionel Smith, Prof." <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>:

> OK, if this is turning into Weird Case Hall of Fame, I have a doozy:  

> Joly v. Pelletier [1999] O.J. No. 1728 (SCJ) (available on QuickLaw):

>

> 2     Mr. Joly's claims in these two actions, and in several others  

> not currently before me, all centre on his firm assertion that he is  

> not a human being; rather a martian. As I understand them, the  

> nature of his complaints against the numerous defendants who include  

> a number of doctors, medical facilities and government agencies is  

> that they have conspired with the American government in its  

> attempts to eliminate him and have otherwise taken various steps to  

> interfere with his ability to establish himself and live freely as a  

> martian.

> 3     As indicated, there are two actions before me. At the  

> beginning of the hearing Mr. Joly advised me that he has recently  

> commenced a third action against, among others, the Central  

> Intelligence Agency, President Clinton and the Honourable Anne  

> McClellan for interfering with his D.N.A. test results that prove  

> that he is, in fact, not human.

> ...

>

> 7     The crux of the various arguments advanced orally and in the  

> written material is that Mr. Joly's claims disclose no cause of  

> action and are otherwise frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the  

> process of the Court. It was also argued that the tort of conspiracy  

> was not properly pleaded and that no damages have been identified or  

> claimed. It was further pointed out that several of the defendants  

> are not legal entities and are not capable of being sued.

> 8     Mr. Joly, in a well prepared, thoughtful argument submitted  

> that he had evidence of falsification of records and related  

> wrongdoing. On the pivotal point of Mr. Joly's being in fact a  

> martian Mr. Joly advised me that the only reason he was not now able  

> to satisfy the Court that he is a martian, not a human, is due to  

> the falsification of his D.N.A. test results by the Americans.

> 9     The authorities relied upon by the moving parties are well  

> known. On a motion to strike out a pleading, the Court must accept  

> the facts as alleged in the Statement of Claim as proven unless they  

> are patently ridiculous and incapable of proof and must read the  

> Statement of Claim generously with allowance for inadequacies due to  

> drafting deficiencies....

>

> 11     In my opinion there are at lease [sic] two reasons why the  

> two Statements of Claim in question ought to be struck and the  

> actions dismissed.

> 1. Neither pleading discloses a cause of action. While conspiracy to  

> do harm to someone is the basis of many actions in this Court there  

> is a fundamental flaw in the position of Mr. Joly. Rule 1.03 defines  

> plaintiff as "a person who commences an action". The New Shorter  

> Oxford English Dictionary defines person as "an individual human  

> being". Section 29 of the Interpretation Act provides that a person  

> includes a corporation. It follows that if the plaintiff is not a  

> person in that he is neither a human being nor a corporation, he  

> cannot be a plaintiff as contemplated by the Rules of Civil  

> Procedure. The entire basis of Mr. Joly's actions is that he is a  

> martian, not a human being. There is certainly no suggestion that he  

> is a corporation. I conclude therefore, that Mr. Joly, on his  

> pleading as drafted, has no status before the Court.

> 2. In respect to the motions brought under rule 25.11 I am of the  

> view that the test has been passed in the circumstances of this  

> case. In other words, I am satisfied that the claims are frivolous  

> and vexatious and constitute an abuse of the process of this Court.  

> In addition to the fact that the tort of conspiracy has not been  

> remotely properly pleaded, no damages have been claimed and many of  

> the defendants are not even legal entities capable of being sued.  

> More importantly, with all respect to Mr. Joly and his perception of  

> reality, these actions are patently ridiculous and should not be  

> allowed to continue as they utilize scarce public resources not to  

> mention the time and money of the numerous defendants who have been  

> forced to defend these actions.

> 12     In the circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the  

> moving parties are entitled to the relief requested. The Statements  

> of Claim in both actions are struck and the actions are dismissed.

>

>

> Personally, I prefer the reasoning in para. 11.2 to that in para.  

> 11.1, which hardly seems like a purposive interpretation of the Rules.

>

> Lionel

>

>