r/amibeingdetained

“The appellant’s letter is nonsense.” Tax Court of Canada Justice Derksen might be accused of understatement. Go on. Read it.

But it's magic nonsense. That letter includes something so rare, so precious, that I curled up in a ball and giggled. It's pseudolaw that is new.

Well, not necessarily without antecedent. But I'd never thought of this combination. Sure, most of the letter is ancient and boring Strawman Theory, names in capitals or with magic spelling. I am not "a PERSON", but a living man. Yawn. Bleh.

Then there's this:

>... what you are doing is committing copyright infringement, Norman Traversy owns the copyrights to the Canada Income Tax Act.

Errr... wut?

Now, it’s an ancient pseudolaw tactic that you claim copyright or trademark in your own name, and then when a government or bank writes you, you demand payment of $100,000 or so on for each instance of your name for copyright infringement. Same if someone sues you. The Statement of Claim is a breach of copyright.

But ... copyright in legislation? How does that work? Copyright belongs to an author/creator, or to whomever the author/creator sold copyright. And who is Norman Traversy? Maybe he was some government official or minister?

Nope. He’s a pseudolaw personality (for example see MacKinnon v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 201) who is hooked in with the fake Indigenous groups and courts that have been expanding in Canada (for example see R v Pickton, 2020 BCSC 1200) with COVID-19 pandemic mitigation resistance angles.

So, we have someone who arbitrarily seems to have claimed copyright in legislation, and - presumably - that then means no one can make reference to or use legislation in some way, so poof! There goes the Income Tax Act.

Naturally I was intrigued. That led down two paths. First, what is the copyright status of things created/written by the Canadian government. Why, that’s specifically covered in the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42, Part -1, section 12:

>12 Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year.

So, copyright in all legislation automatically vests with Canada. Norman is an interloper! Or, since the first Canadian Income Tax Act (then the Income Tax War Act) dates to 1917, then the ITA is public domain. But that’s no basis for Norman to claim copyright.

But it gets better.

I mused ... what if Norman had gone to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office and started registering copyright in legislation. You see, there isn’t much screening of filing a copyright registration, unlike trademarks and patents which are an involved process. Quick search on the CIPO copyright engine and ... oh dear. There are a set of copyright registrations for Norman Traversy:

• 1173152 - Justice for Canada
• 1194165 - Freedom Convoy, The Freedom Convoy
• 1221632 - Dreadnaught
• 1230302 - Bill C-15: An Act Respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

No Income Tax Act. But Traversy does seem to have seized copyright (on paper) of the legislation that implements the often-discussed UNDRIP Treaty.

In reality this is meaningless, because that legislation dates to 2021, so within the 50-year absolute copyright period. Still - comical and neat!

What does it mean, though, pseudolegally, that Traversy has copyright? No idea.

Back to the Justice Derksen decision. This relates to tax matters that date to the mid 2000s. The taxpayer, Jeffrey Curran, claimed tax credits relating to mining and mineral development expenses. Until 2025 that litigation inched along in the Tax Court of Canada as a group of appeals with a lead case to decide the matter. Pretty typical of how the TCC works. It is cost and resource effective to run a small subset or single lead case then apply the result to a cluster of largely identical tax disputes.

But the test cases were discontinued. Ultimately almost all were settled in some manner. Curran is an exception. Curran had a lawyer who withdrew in 2025, and afterwards Curran represented himself.

I’ll let Justice Derkman continue the narrative:

>... Now on his own, the appellant had choices to make. And the appellant made bad ones. Instead of attending the examination for discovery that the Crown had scheduled for December 3, 2025, to be held virtually and on a date that the appellant had confirmed was suitable, the appellant adopted a pseudo-legal stance.

>... The appellant fails to appreciate that he commenced this proceeding, not the Crown. It was his appeal to prosecute. He has not done so. Although this Court should be slow to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution, or for failing to attend an examination for discovery—and especially where there are extenuating circumstances—a slow pace is not warranted here. Sometimes pseudo-legal theorists require a swift and decisive response. For this reason, and as discussed further below, the appellant’s appeal will be dismissed.

Curran sent the attached letter, with a fingerprint in red ink.

But Canadian courts are not exactly enthused about these ideas:

>... As Associate Chief Justice Rooke stated in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, Courts will not tolerate pseudo-legal arguments, misconduct, or tactics. Such behaviour is an abuse of process ...

>... Too much ink has been spilled on pseudo-legal arguments, or what are commonly referred to as “organized pseudo-legal commercial arguments.”

>... The appellant made a calculated decision by sending his letter dated November 24, 2025, to counsel for the Crown. He even made the effort to send it by registered mail and then followed up to confirm delivery. I have no reason to believe—and especially now that at least five months have since passed—that the appellant intends to correct course. Instead, the appellant has disengaged from his appeal. His actions amount to a deliberate abuse of the Court’s process. And this is not a time for second or third chances.

>... In the circumstances, I am exercising my discretion and will dismiss the appellant’s appeal. Costs are awarded to the Crown, and payable by the appellant, in the fixed amount of $1,500.

FAFO.

And that, my friends, is how you deal with pseudolaw litigation. Though I do disagree in a small way. I like spilling ink about pseudolaw. Somebody has to here in Canada. But I quite understand how courts are thoroughly sick of it.

Here’s the judgment: Curran v The King, 2026 TCC 79.

It's classy.

Court case: https://ournevadajudges.com/assets/docs/documents/1139-motion-to-unseal.pdf