Introduction

Self-represented litigants are increasingly common in disputes with banks, as are organized pseudolegal commercial argument (“OPCA”) debt-elimination defence strategies. Saskatchewan’s Court of King’s Bench released two OPCA decisions within a week of each other in October 2026. Together, the decisions show that Saskatchewan courts treat OPCA tactics firmly, whether used as a shield or a sword.

Case Summaries

The Bank of Nova Scotia v Olyniuk (Crooks J., October 13, 2026)

The Olyniuks stopped paying a line of credit and three credit cards in 2017-2018. The Bank of Nova Scotia (“BNS”) sued in August 2018. The defendants admitted the contracts and the amounts claimed but refused to pay until BNS produced an affidavit from a chartered accountant, based on a review of its ledgers, confirming it had not sold or transferred the debts. They said a “private lender” would then pay out the accounts once that was confirmed.

Eight years later, BNS applied for summary judgment, which was granted. In granting summary judgment, Crooks J. did four things:

• Refused to let a third party act for Mr. Olyniuk under a “Notice of Designation of Indigenous Representative”;
• Held that the case was well suited to summary judgment;
• Ruled the defendants’ “expert” accountant affidavit inadmissible; and
• Rejected the “securitization” defence, granting judgment on all four accounts, with interest at the contract rates (up to 24.99%), plus solicitor-client costs.

Marynick v Fairstone Financial Inc. (Robertson J., October 19, 2026)

Mr. Marynick defaulted on a 2019 Fairstone mortgage. Prior to suing Fairstone in 2024 for $30,000 for false credit reporting, Mr. Marynick had applied to remove the mortgage charge from title and restore his credit. Norbeck J. dismissed this application, and the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal (2026 SKCA 72). Mr. Marynick’s Statement of Claim was seven paragraphs long. Fairstone applied under Rule 7-9 to strike the claim.

Robertson J. struck the claim without leave to amend and dismissed the action. He found no reasonable cause of action, a vexatious pleading, and an abuse of process. Mr. Marynick was ordered to pay $3,000 in costs forthwith.

Key Legal Issues

1. Must a lender prove it still owns the debt? Both courts said no. Crooks J. found no contractual or legal requirement for an accountant’s ledger affidavit. She relied on Toronto Dominion Bank v Manah, which holds that a creditor may prove its case with any admissible evidence and that “ledger proof” or “wet ink” originals are not required. Robertson J. called the “trading debts” premise “nonsense” that has been repeatedly rejected.
2. Non-lawyer “Indigenous representatives.” Crooks J. adopted MD v Alberta. That case holds that Article 18 of UNDRIP sets out a collective right and does not give an individual the right to be represented by a non-lawyer. She also noted that Saskatchewan has not passed its own UNDRIP legislation. She added that Mr. Olyniuk offered no evidence that he is Indigenous to support the use of an Indigenous representative. Most importantly, a person who endorses OPCA tactics is not a proper litigation representative.
3. “Expert” evidence that is really advocacy. Mr. Stadnyk’s affidavit was not served. It did not identify what he had reviewed, did not acknowledge his duty to the court, and endorsed tactics that courts have repeatedly rejected. Applying White Burgess, Crooks J. found he was not impartial and gave his evidence no weight.
4. Going on the offence. The doctrinal point in Marynick is that recasting the scheme as a claim does not help. A pre-emptive or retaliatory claim is “no less objectionable” than a defence and is vexatious. Robertson J. also treated a disproportionate damages claim for credit reporting as a hallmark of this type of abuse.

Commentary

Olyniuk and Marynick together form a playbook for dealing with OPCA litigants on both the offensive and defensive sides of the file. Olyniuk works through each step of the three-part scheme (private lender, wet-ink demand, accountant affidavit) and grounds the analysis in Alberta’s Bonville line of cases. Marynick is short, but it closes the obvious workaround of suing first.

Both decisions make clear that a person claiming that “we’re not OPCA litigants because we admit the debt” is not an acceptable position. Mr. Olyniuk argued exactly that. The court found that the defendants’ professed willingness to pay “ring[s] hollow” if it comes with a condition that is both unenforceable and has delayed payment for eight years. During the delay, the debts roughly doubled because of accrued interest. For anyone tempted by these schemes, that is the real cost.

Crooks J.’s finding on experts is useful in and beyond OPCA cases. The accountant’s affidavit failed on service, on Rules 5-37 and 5-39 (no stated basis for the opinion, no acknowledgment of the duty to the court), and on independence under White Burgess. Even if admissible, the affidavit would have received no weight. Practitioners facing a similar “expert” can use this analysis.

Olyniuk also provides some guidance on how to avoid these situations. Crooks J. suggests that lenders’ affiants might state up front that the debt has not been sold. That is practical advice, and including this information in an affidavit helps to eliminate the defence of securitization.

Takeaways

The decisions offer practical takeaways for counsel and self-represented litigants:

1. Summary judgment and Rule 7-9 may be useful tools when dealing with OPCA litigants.
2. Ensure the correct wording is included in affiant materials to avoid OPCA arguments.
3. Representatives other than the litigant or their lawyer should not be permitted to participate.
4. Expert evidence should be scrutinized within the King’s Bench Rules and White Burgess.
5. Contractual indemnity together with the OPCA conduct may operate to allow the Court to grant solicitor-client costs.
6. The debt does not go away, and interest keeps running. Employing OPCA strategies as a debtor may result in heightened cost awards by the Court.

This post is for information purposes only and should not be taken as legal opinions on any specific facts or circumstances. Counsel should be consulted concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions you may have.

About the Author:

Taylor L. Wilcox is an associate lawyer in the Saskatoon office. He practices primarily in the areas of civil litigation, construction law, and foreclosure matters. Taylor also has experience in residential real estate, cannabis law and corporate commercial law. 

About McKercher LLP:

For 100 years, McKercher LLP has grown deep roots across Saskatchewan, serving the community from offices in Saskatoon and Regina. Now, as one of the province’s largest and most established full-service law firms, we proudly carry on this legacy – following a client-first philosophy as we provide legal services and real solutions for the people who rely on us.

Related Articles:

A Young Lawyer’s Guide to Litigating Adverse Self-Represented Litigants (As published by CLIA)

Saskatchewan Pioneers Formalized Limited Licensing

Section 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act: How Creditors Can Pursue Claims When Trustees Refuse