C.S.N. v. A.L.C., 2011 ABQB 370

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: C.S.N. v. A.L.C., 2011 ABQB 370 Date: 20110609 Docket: FL03 23175 Registry: Edmonton Between: C.S.N. Applicant - and - A.L.C. Respondent _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr.

Justice Donald Lee _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Applicant obtained an Emergency Protection Order on March 8, 2010 after the Respondent allegedly threatened her, and her children by killing her grandparents’ cats and leaving a photo album with pictures of her children and herself next to the dead cats. Numerous applications had to be made to this Court to have the Applicant’s Emergency Protection Order extended as there were difficulties in serving the Respondent.

On October 26, 2010 the Respondent was eventually served with a copy of the Emergency Protection Order granted on March 8, 2010. [ 2 ] These parties were in a common-law relationship until April 2003, and have twins from that relationship currently almost 8 years of age.

[ 3 ] I dealt with the viva voce hearing of evidence in this matter on February 28, 2011, at which time the Respondent was not able to provide and/or properly submit all of his information and materials to the Court. The Respondent then missed my March 18, 2011 deadline to provide the Court and Applicant’s counsel with those appropriate materials following the February 28, 2011 hearing. It was only after searching extensively through the file and contacting the Respondent’s previous lawyer of record that the Court was finally able to locate the Respondent in May 2011.

The Respondent filed his supplemental materials on May 24, 2011, and the Applicant has sworn her final Affidavit in this matter on June 2, 2011 in response. The Respondent provided no good reason for not providing his materials as required. [ 4 ] The Applicant alleges that the Respondent first entered her grandparents’ cabin at Pigeon Lake on August 2, 2009 with an axe or other axe like object and cut the throat of three cats.

He then is alleged to have verbally threatened the Applicant and warned her to watch her step because he had ways of hurting her and the children, her mother, her grandparents, and that she should be careful or ‘we’d come home one day and find a cat nailed to the front door’. [ 5 ] It is alleged that the Respondent has a criminal record, having served time in prison three times in British Columbia; and that he still has outstanding warrants for his arrest in British Columbia and perhaps even in Alberta. [ 6 ] A formal complaint was filed with the RCMP in this matter involving the dead cats in June 2010 when it was discovered that the Pigeon Lake cabin had again been entered into, a lamp had been toppled over, and next to it was a dead cat with its throat/neck cut.

Next to the cat’s body was an empty box in which was placed pictures of the Applicant’s son, daughter, grandparents, her mother and herself.

There was also another picture which appears to be that of the Respondent’s mother, father, sister and himself as a child. [ 7 ] The initial Emergency Protection Order in this matter granted against the Respondent on March 8, 2010 was a result of the Applicant finding two dead cats in her grandparents’ cabin with broken necks; and a pair of sunglasses that she had given the Respondent in the past. [ 8 ] The Respondent has always denied that he has been guilty of stalking the Applicant, and killing the cats.

He has not been to the Pigeon Lake cabin for a considerable period of time, and would have had to hitchhike to ever get there as he was no means of transportation. He argues that the neighbours nearby the cabin would have seen him and the so called “sunglasses” that he had left there had he been at the cabin recently. He states that the sunglasses had been left at the cabin from when he had been living there with the Applicant, and not recently. He argues that the serious and defamatory accusations against him are simply part of the Applicant attempting to prevent him from having access to his children.

Conclusion [ 9 ] The Respondent’s argument that his sunglasses found at the Pigeon Lake cabin were from the time of the parties’ relationship when they lived together over seven years previous is simply not credible.

Nor are his “alibi” sources and letters, which were ordered to have been provided in Affidavit form not in letter form. [ 10 ] The Respondent’s landlord states in her February 25, 2011 letter that the Respondent has been a tenant in her home from April 1, 2010 to the present, and notes “that there has not been a day or weekend that he (the Respondent) has not been away from the house because of his employment situation”.

This evidences that the Respondent is often away from his residence on a regular basis, which is contrary to what the Respondent has stated previously. [ 11 ] The submission of “alibi” letters also present problems for the Applicant and her counsel who cannot examine the writer(

s) of those letters given that they were not submitted in Affidavit form. [ 12 ] Even on the face of one of the letters, there are some indications that it has have been back dated and initialled to be more consistent with the Respondent’s story. For example the Respondent’s previous landlord writes that at the time of the incidents on August 2, 2009 and “February 27, 2010”, but he later back dates and initials that latter date to read “February 27, 2009”. The back dating

and initialling is somewhat important because the May 24, 2011 letter from the Respondent’s previous landlord goes on to say that “during the days mentioned, as well as the rest of the year in-between, [the Respondent] was at the house in the evening sleeping in his bed” and that at no time did he or any of the other tenants on his property drive the Respondent to Pigeon Lake.

This letter then seems remarkedly self-serving and is therefore of little probative value. [ 13 ] The May 24, 2011 letter from his previous landlord also states that while the Respondent was his tenant he displayed no violent acts or behaviour, but the Respondent has already admitted in the hearing before me that he pushed the Applicant at least once in public, and that he has a criminal record in British Columbia. The Respondent acknowledges shoving the Applicant in public when she advised him that she was marrying another person.

The relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent had ended as of April 30, 2003, but the shoving incident takes place by the Respondent’s own admission in May 2009. [ 14 ] It is true that the RCMP never charged the Respondent with any criminal activity arising out of the allegations at Pigeon Lake, however it appears that they did take the investigation very seriously.

Nevertheless criminal charges and convictions are not a prerequisite to obtaining an Emergency Protection Order. [ 15 ] In any event it does appear that the Respondent’s sunglasses that were found by the Applicant were not left at the cabin while these parties were in a relationship that ended in April 2003, but rather were left there much more recently as part of the unauthorized entries to the cabin, which further implicated the Respondent. [ 16 ] I conclude that the existing Emergency Protection Order in this matter should be extended indefinitely as the Applicant’s safety and that of the children are in jeopardy.

Heard on the 28 th day of February, 2011. Further Written Materials filed on the 24 th day of May and the 7 th day of June, 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 9 th day of June, 2011. Donald Lee J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Navdeep Virk Virk Law

for the Applicant A.L.C., Respondent Appeared On His Own Behalf