McMeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABQB 625

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: McMeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABQB 625 Date: 20121012 Docket: 1103 12194 Registry: Edmonton Between: Greg McMeekin Respondent (Plaintiff) - and - Attorney General of Alberta / Crown Prosecutor ’ s Office Edmonton; A. Harriet & C. Lim Counsel for the Crown and Attorney General ’ s Office of Alberta, the Edmonton Humane Society: Shawna Randolph, Dr. Karen Lange, Lisa Callas, Deb Pope, Valerie E. Kensett, Holy Mcbride, Carolee Hofman, S/Cst.

Granysh, and John Doe ’ s of the Edmonton Humane Society Applicant (Defendants) _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice B.A. Browne _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] The Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Alberta [the “Applicant”] seeks an order declaring Greg McMeekin [“Mr. McMeekin”] a vexatious litigant, thereby restricting him from instituting or continuing proceedings in Alberta courts.

[ 2 ] Mr. McMeekin denies that he is a vexatious litigant. Rather, he is the target of a coordinated conspiracy by various government lawyers, the Attorney General, members of the judiciary, the Edmonton Humane Society [“EHS”], and certain media outlets. He seeks to have a number of actions re-instated and directed to the Alberta Court of Appeal, to have his claim placed into a dispute resolution process, to have the Applicants represented by independent counsel and to have costs awarded in his favour. II. Vexatious Litigant Status [ 3 ] Judicature Act , R.S.A. 2000, c.

J-2, ss. 23- 23.1 permit a court to order restrictions on the ability of a person to initiate or continue litigation in Alberta courts: 23.1(1) Where ... a Court is satisfied that a person is instituting vexatious proceedings in the Court or is conducting a proceeding in a vexatious manner, the Court may order that (

a) the person shall not institute a further proceeding or institute proceedings on behalf of any other person, or (

b) a proceeding instituted by the person may not be continued, without leave of the Court. [ 4 ] Vexatious conduct is defined in s. 23(2): 23(2) For the purposes of this Part, instituting vexatious proceedings or conducting a proceeding in a vexatious manner includes, without limitation, any one or more of the following: (

a) persistently bringing proceedings to determine an issue that has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction; (

b) persistently bringing proceedings that cannot succeed or that have no reasonable expectation of providing relief; (

c) persistently bringing proceedings for improper purposes; (

d) persistently using previously raised grounds and issues in subsequent proceedings inappropriately; (

e) persistently failing to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings on the part of the person who commenced those proceedings; (

f) persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions; (

g) persistently engaging in inappropriate courtroom behaviour. [ 5 ] The decision of Dykun v. Odinshaw , 2000 ABQB 548 at para. 42 provides a largely parallel set of indicia of vexatious conduct. A proceeding is vexatious if it satisfies any of the following tests:

(

a) the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding; (

b) where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious; (

c) vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights; (

d) it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings ; (

e) in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action; (

f) the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are vexatious; (

g) the respondent's conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceeding. [Emphasis added.] [ 6 ] The fourth indicium, that vexatious litigation has an ‘accumulative’ character, is not specifically reflected in the Judicature Act , s. 23(2) list. The Crown suggests and I agree that is an additional basis on which I could conclude Mr. McMeekin has engaged in vexatious litigation. III. Mr. McMeekin ’s Litigation History [ 7 ] A review of the partys’ submissions is best conducted in the context of Mr.

McMeekin’s complex litigation history. I will provide a general review of the proceedings to date. A more detailed survey of the majority of actions and motions is provided in McMeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General) , 2012 ABQB 456 at paras. 1-82 [ Dreyfuss Civil Decision #1 ]. For clarity, the language I use to identify various proceedings will parallel that used in Dreyfuss Civil Decision #1 A. The Animal Protection Action [ 8 ] In 2006, Mr. McMeekin’s dog, Dreyfuss, was seized by the EHS from a closed and hot car. Mr. McMeekin was subsequently charged under the Animal Protection Act , R.S.A. 2000, c.

A-41, s. 2(1) [“ APA ”] for having caused or allowed Dreyfuss to become distressed [the “Animal Protection Action”]. A succession of hearings between 2007-2011 led to a trial before Alberta Provincial Court Judge Johnson. She declared a mistrial on June 21, 2011, and the charge against Mr. McMeekin was stayed by the Crown on July 13, 2011. [ 9 ] Mr. McMeekin subsequently sought an award of costs against the Crown. He applied first to J. Burrows, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (see Dreyfuss Civil Decision #1 , at para. 40 ) and then J.A. Bielby, Court of Appeal ( R. v. McMeekin , 2011 ABCA 253 ).

He was re-directed to Provincial Court, and on November 29, 2011 Johnson P.C.J. denied that remedy on the basis that the Crown had not engaged in misconduct that would warrant a cost award ( R. v. McMeekin , 2011 ABPC 359 at para. 35 ). This conclusion was confirmed by Justice Michalyshyn on 19 July 2012 in R. v. McMeekin , 2012 ABQB 472 at para. 21 . That decision was not appealed.

B. Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 [ 10 ] On October 11, 2011 Mr. McMeekin initiated a civil action against various Alberta govenment actors and employees, and the EHS and its employees. In brief, Mr. McMeekin alleged that in the Animal Protection Action he had been wrongfully prosecuted in relation to the alleged neglect of his dog and that his character had been defamed. [ 11 ] The steps in this proceeding are reviewed by Justice Shelley in Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 at paras. 43-57, and 77-82. On November 10 th , 2011 Master Schlosser heard applications by Mr.

McMeekin relating to media reports and requesting the defendants’ statement of claim be struck. The order to produce documents was granted by the Master and the application to strike the statement of defence was adjourned to a Special Chambers date. Mr. McMeekin challenged the Master’s order to adjourn before Justice Veit on December 2 nd , 2011. Justice Veit adjourned all applications to a Special Chambers hearing. [ 12 ] December 5 th , 2011 Mr.

McMeekin filed a number of applications relating to allegedly defective affidavit of records, requesting noting of defendants in default and repeating the demands previously made before Justice Veit. [ 13 ] December 21 st , 2011 Justice Gates heard these motions as an appeal from the Master’s previous decision. Justice Gates dismissed Mr. McMeekin’s applications / appeals and set a Special Chambers date of February 1, 2012 before Master Schlosser to address the remaining applications of Mr. McMeekin and the defendants. He further prohibited Mr.

McMeekin from filing any applications or appeals before the February 1 st hearing. [ 14 ] At the Special Chambers hearing on February 1, 2012 Master Schlosser adjourned the hearing to Special Chambers in the Court of Queen’s Bench on March 29, 2012 as a result of a number of allegations Mr. McMeekin had made against the Master. [ 15 ] At the hearing on March 29, 2012, the defendants argued the action had no chance of success due to the principle of prosecutorial discretion, and the expiry of limitations periods. Mr. McMeekin argued for

summary judgment on the basis of a number of defects. [ 16 ] In the Judgment of Justice Shelley issued 12 July 2012, she struck Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 on three bases, that: 1. it was fatally flawed (para. 152); 2. there was no factual basis for the alleged misconduct (paras. 172, 177); and 3. Mr. McMeekin is a vexatious litigant, and had conducted the Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 for improper purposes (para. 210). [ 17 ] Justice Shelley considered and rejected Mr. McMeekin’s arguments that the statements of defence ought to be struck and

summary judgment ordered (paras. 220-222), and that the defendants had not complied with their dispute resolution obligations (paras. 215-219). [ 18 ] Mr. McMeekin has not appealed Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 , but he did attempt taxation of costs against the defendants without a corresponding court order to that effect. C. Dreyfuss Civil Action #2

[ 19 ] During the many court applications above and during the time that Justice Gates’ prohibition on filing documents was in place, Mr. McMeekin initiated an essentially duplicate action though with some additional defendants and allegations. [“Dreyfuss Civil Action #2”]. This duplicate action was struck by Marceau J. on March 7, 2012 in McMeekin v. Alberta (Attorney General) , 2012 ABQB 144 [ Dreyfuss Civil Action #2 ]. The steps in that proceeding, including some that occurred after the action was struck, are summarized in Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 at paras. 58-77.

Justice Marceau concluded that Dreyfuss Civil Action #2 was frivolous and vexatious: para. 32. [ 20 ] Mr. McMeekin has not appealed Dreyfuss Civil Action #2. D. Other Litigation [ 21 ] Mr. McMeekin has also been involved in other reported litigation in jurisdictions other than Alberta. These actions are reviewed in Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 at paras. 83-127. Justice Shelley subsequently distills incidents of misconduct by Mr. McMeekin in these other proceedings at paras. 196-198. IV. Analysis A.

The Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Alberta ’s Submissions [ 22 ] The Applicant notes that in both Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 and Dreyfuss Civil Action #2 the Statements of Claim were struck as instances of vexatious litigation. Counsel also observes and identifies examples where each of the Judicature Act and common law indicia of vexatious litigation are present in Mr. McMeekin’s litigation history. The Applicant submits that the only intention that can be distilled from Mr.

McMeekin’s litigation history is that he uses court processes as a mechanism to punish and terrorize those who attract his attention, and that his future participation in court proceedings should be restricted to prevent further misconduct of this kind. B. Mr. McMeekin ’s Submissions [ 23 ] Mr. McMeekin’s submissions are more complex. They are directly relevant to the question of whether he is a vexatious litigant as, sadly, they illustrate much of his intention and character. I will draw examples from both his written submissions and his in- court argument. [ 24 ] Mr.

McMeekin asserts he has done no wrong, and in fact the present Judicature Act vexatious litigant application is no more than a continuation of the conspiracy directed at him that is intended to cover up the alleged misconduct of the Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 and #2 defendants, and members of the judiciary. [ 25 ] He also argues a number of what may be called technical defects, such as that the notice requirement in Judicature Act , s. 23.1(4) was not met, and that any declaration would be ineffective as only restricted to the Provincial Court via s. 23.1(6). These are incorrect. [ 26 ] Mr.

McMeekin makes substantial complaints that relate to the subjects of the various Animal Protection Action, and Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 and #2 proceedings, and rejects their results on various grounds. He alleges he has been forced to pay many expenses and was subjected to unfair and unreasonable delay. He indicates the stay of proceedings in the Animal Protection Action is unlawful. I note that these are all allegations that have been investigated and rejected in previous decisions, including Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 , Dreyfuss Civil Action #2 , R. v. McMeekin , 2011 ABPC 359 and R. v.

McMeekin , 2012 ABQB 472 , and that Mr. McMeekin has not appealed those decisions beyond the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.

[ 27 ] Mr. McMeekin maintains his allegations that the judiciary is controlled by the Attorney General’s office and its lawyers, and that the appearance of different lawyers represents attempts to cover up misconduct. He complains that he was not notified of the change in representation, which he alleges is contrary to the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta. Reg. 124/2010. [ 28 ] His prior negative commentary on the judiciary continues.

For example, at para. 19 of his written submissions he alleges that a Court Master who had scheduled a special chambers application did so because he was coerced: Applying these (4) rules was too complex for Master Schlosser, so he submitted to the Crowns pressure to set a special Chambers Date “Without “application or notice to the Plaintiff ( Abuse of Qualified privilege & abuse of process unreasonable delays of 4 Months By the Crown #7 Judicial misconduct and Miscarriage of justice by Master Schlosser #3) Cost to Mr Mcmeekin 6,000.00 not including 2.500 for appearance) “This application was Never ruled on “After 5 months of wait Judicial Misconduct and Miscarriage of Justice #9 [sic, emphasis in original.] [ 29 ] Subsequently, Mr.

McMeekin alleges that Justice Shelley ignored various rulings that were unfavourable to the Crown “... to Help the Crown cover up its civil contempt ...” (McMeekin written submissions at para. 21). Further and in relation to Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 , Mr.

McMeekin writes at para. 24: Justice Shelleys submissions and ruling is a disgrace to the Judicial system and a perfect example of how corrupted and self serving the Lower Supreme courts in Edmonton have become its an example of how the Crowns office Alberta Justicies controls and directs the Supreme Court Justices to cover up Civil Contempt, abuse of process Charter violations. [sic.] [ 30 ] A theme in Mr. McMeekin’s oral submissions was that the judicial officials involved in the Animal Protection Action and the Dreyfuss Civil Actions had not discharged their duties by addressing the issues put before them.

Review of the relevant decisions shows, beyond doubt, that Mr. McMeekin was untruthful on these points. For example, he alleged that Justice Shelley had not responded to his arguments that the defence had failed to file adequate statements of defence or take appropriate steps to resolve this matter prior to trial. Those issues are addressed, reviewed, and rejected in Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 , at paras. 220-222, and 215-219, respectively. [ 31 ] Similarly, Mr. McMeekin alleges that Judge Johnson never ruled on the question of costs in the Animal Protection Action.

The Provincial Court costs application is the entire subject of the R. v. McMeekin , 2011 ABPC 359 decision. [ 32 ] He restates that his offer to settle this dispute, which he attached, is reasonable. This document, dated September 21, 2012, requests this relief in return for Mr. McMeekin discontinuing his actions (which have already been struck or denied): What the offer is 3)

a) The Alberta Attorney General’s office and The Edmonton Humane Society to pay all cost & travel related to this action dating back to 2007 to the Accused. [sic] Amount of Approx $168,000.00 CDN

b) The Attorney General of Alberta / Edmonton Crown Attorney’s office To Pay: General, Aggravated and Punitive damages to the Accused, for Actions relating to unreasonable delays, Prejudice, Abuse of Process, defamation, Act of Malice, abuse of Qualified privilege by Mr. Harriet’s, Mr Lim and the Attorney Generals of Alberta’s office [sic] The Amount of $8,000,000.00

c) The Edmonton Humane society to pay in Punitive, Aggravatied genearl damages for malice libel and defamation [sic] The Amount of $1,000,000.00

d) Donate to NWT kennels and animal shelters of Mr Mcmeekin’s choice in Drefuss’s Name without recognition of any kind including

tax write offs, or set up Bank account so that money can be used over time [sic] The Amount of $100,000.00

e) agree to a review of Mr Harriet’s and Mr Lim’s conduct through the Upper Law society of Canada and Alberta and Canada the Attorney Generals office as well as any other reviews or actions as the Courts sees fit to impose. [sic]

f) charges under the animal act against the for neglecting to Provide necessary care to Dreyfuss (Mr Mcmeekin’s Dog) + damages for sedating Dreyfuss and using him in a photo opt for personal gains, damages paid to NWT Animals shelter of Mr Mcmeekins Choice [sic] Amounts of $10,000.00 The deadline for acceptance is November 15, 2012. Perhaps stating the obvious, these amounts have no relation to the alleged misconduct and/or injuries of which Mr. McMeekin complains. [ 33 ] Mr.

McMeekin argues that the misconduct of the Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 and #2 defendants is “well documented and supported by the actions of The Justices Judges Lawyers and Crown attorneys involved.” [sic] (McMeekin written arguments at para. 26). This: ... Signifies that the Worships, Provincial Judges Supreme Court Justices are powerless to up hold and adhere to the rules o the Alberta courts the Charter of rights and freedoms the Canadian bill of rights and the fundamental principles of our justice system. [sic.] [ 34 ] At para. 29 and 30 Mr. McMeekin concludes:

(29) There are no fewer than

(10) Charter of rights and freedoms/ Canadian bill of rights violations, (3) acts of malice, (15) acts of abuse of qualified privilege (6) acts abuse of process, (6) civil contempt’s of the Alberta courts,

(7) Act of Judicial Misconduct (7) acts of miscarriage of justice and 6 years of abuse of process and Over 180,000.00 in cost to Mr Mcmeekin all for a 1000.00 traffic ticket not looking good of you guys

(30) Mr Mcmeekin’s applications to the Supreme Court and Judicial counsel will no doubt be approved and heard [sic.] [ 35 ] In conclusion, Mr.

McMeekin seeks: 1. that the Crown be represented by “an independent law firm” in future activities in the Animal Protection Action, Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 and #2; 2. that those three proceedings be heard by a panel of three Court of Appeal judges “without application or cost to Mr Mcmeekin And full transcripts of rulings/ decisions, trials be provided free of charge.” [sic.]; 3. those appeal hearings and rulings occur within three months; or 4. that I direct the defendants of the Dreyfuss Civil Actions #1 and #2 into a dispute resolution process. [ 36 ] Last, I quote Mr.

McMeekin’s closing submissions at the October 3, 2012 hearing:

... I’m not going away. The next step is, the next step is going to be applications to the judicature counsel, the applications to the human rights commissions, the UN, the UN is also making, is also making rulings in the N.W.T. on human rights cases and violations by the courts. ... Well, they are. And, if they want to be embarrassed, hey, then we can go that way too. I haven’t even begun to embarrass them yet. I’ve just followed the rules, tried to get my applications heard, and tried to get, tried to get these proceedings over.

If they want to be embarrassed, then I’m going to exploit them for everything that’s gone on. I’ve got six or seven Charter violations, right there from day one. You wanna go at it? Let’s go at it. I’m capable of doing that. The hardship they have caused my family and the people that I care about, and the amount of loss that I am going to have to face because they wanted to play their little charade is just phenomenal. So if you wanna, if you wanna avoid any further embarrassment, that’s the way to go, because I’m not quitting. I’m not going to give up, and I can, I can barely sentence being charged.

If you look at my application properly, then I can do it. And I’m going to do it. They want, they want, they want $7500.00, shipping my application to the Supreme Court of Canada is $100.00. ... Well, if they want those costs, it’s cheaper for me to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. I can write, I can write the judicature counsel, I can write the upper law society of Canada. I got Charter violations. I got administrative law violations. I’ve got civil contempt. I’ve got abuse of process. I’ve got abuse of qualified privilege. I can keep going, I haven’t even got, I haven’t even spent two days on this so far.

And if you want to find out how good I am, then let’s go at it. But you know, at the end of the day, I’m not walking away. And it’s not going to get any better for them. C. Vexatious Litigant Status 1. Mr. McMeekin is a Vexatious Litigant [ 37 ] I have reviewed Mr. McMeekin’s litigation history, within and outside Alberta. Justices Marceau and Shelley in Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 and Dreyfuss Civil Action #2 concluded that Mr. McMeekin’s conduct in those proceedings was vexatious. I see no reason to come to a different conclusion. [ 38 ] In this application, alone, Mr.

McMeekin has exhibited the following characteristics of a vexatious litigant: 1. Return to an issue that is already determined : Mr. McMeekin has re-argued the majority, if not all, subjects addressed in the Animal Protection Action and the Dreyfuss Civil Actions. 2. Bringing proceedings that cannot or are unlikely to succeed : Mr. McMeekin has asked me to, in effect, initiate late appeals at no cost to himself and/or take steps in relation to decisions made by other Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench judges. 3.

Bringing proceedings for improper purposes : the remedies he has sought in this application are obviously inappropriate. Similarly his settlement offer, to the successful defendants of the Dreyfuss Civil Actions, has no relation to his alleged injuries. 4. Using previously raised grounds and issues : as previously noted, Mr. McMeekin attempted to argue issues resolved in the Animal Protection Action and the Dreyfuss Civil Actions. 5. Unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions : Mr. McMeekin’s arguments in this matter did not relate to his future inclination to

engage in unwarranted litigation, but instead were in substance an appeal of Animal Protection Action and the Dreyfuss Civil Actions. 6. Failure to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings: Mr. McMeekin in his closing statements was explicit - why should he paycosts when he can simply keep appealing his actions to other bodies. 7. Inappropriate courtroom behaviour: Mr.

McMeekin in his written and oral submissions made incorrect and unsupportedallegations in relation to the Crown, its employees, and members of the judiciary. [39] I note that in paragraphs 196-198 of the Dreyfuss Civil Action #1 decision Justice Shelley has reviewed the recurring patternsof Mr. McMeekin’s misconduct disclosed through his litigation history. I have directly observed the following of those in the presentaction: 1. Mr. McMeekin has a history of unsubstantiated allegations against judges and government actors; 2. Mr. McMeekin makes unwarranted and excessive damage claims; 3. Mr.

McMeekin advances excessive cost claims; 4. Mr. McMeekin demands remedies that are outside a court’s jurisdiction; and 5. when unsuccessful, Mr. McMeekin re-litigates issues in an abusive manner. [40] In reviewing Mr. McMeekin’s litigation history, Justice Shelley came to the following conclusion: [199] There is a well established principle in law that a person can be presumed to have intended the natural consequences of their acts:Starr v. Houlden, (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1366, 68 D.L.R. (4th) 641. People make mistakes, and (hopefully) learnfrom them.

When a person takes an incorrect action, is informed of their error, but then persists and commits the same ‘error’ again andagain, that is evidence that the person does not misunderstand their action is incorrect. Rather, that indicates the person wants to breakthe rules. [200] My review of Mr. McMeekin’s conduct in this action, and in others, satisfies me that is exactly what Mr. McMeekin has intended.His ‘missteps’ in this proceeding were not accidental, but intentional.

I can and do infer that he knows and intends that he will advancespurious claims, adopt vexatious litigation strategies, demand unreasonable (and impossible) remedies, breach court procedure andprotocol, and attempt to soil the reputations of those he encounters without any valid basis. [41] I come to the same conclusion. Mr. McMeekin intends the effects of his litigation pattern, and that pattern is vexatious. JusticeShelley classified Mr. McMeekin as a “litigation terrorist”. I agree. He uses court processes to intimidate and to harm others, and that ishis objective. 2. Restriction of Mr.

McMeekin’s Activities in Alberta Courts is Appropriate [42] I conclude that the order sought by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Alberta is appropriate. The targets ofMr. McMeekin’s legal activity are innocents. New targets appear with each step in these proceedings. Again, I quote Justice Shelley inDreyfuss Civil Action #1, at para. 200:

I do not pretend to fully understand why Mr. McMeekin persists in this manner, but I have no doubt that he knows very well that he is ignoring court procedure, court etiquette, and advancing spurious, exaggerated claims. That is not tolerable. Mr. McMeekin has no right to force on an ever expanding cast of Defendants in this matter the cost and time commitments necessary to respond to his allegations and abuse of court processes. [ 43 ] I am not the first to agree with this conclusion: R. v.

McMeekin , 2012 ABQB 472 , at paras. 30-31 . [ 44 ] I would be less inclined to make a Judicature Act , s. 23.1 order if I had some indication that Mr. McMeekin may now intend to conduct himself before the courts in a different way. Instead, he told me this: I can write, I can write the judicature counsel, I can write the upper law society of Canada. I got Charter violations. I got administrative law violations. I’ve got civil contempt. I’ve got abuse of process. I’ve got abuse of qualified privilege. I can keep going, I haven’t even got, I haven’t even spent two days on this so far.

And if you want to find out how good I am, then let’s go at it. But you know, at the end of the day, I’m not walking away. And it’s not going to get any better for them. V. Conclusion [ 45 ] Given my conclusion that Mr. McMeekin habitually engages in unwarranted, unjustified, and abusive litigation, and his plain statement that he does not intend to stop, I am satisfied that Mr.

McMeekin’s activities in the court must be restricted in an attempt to minimize the harm to others. [ 46 ] I therefore grant the application of the Attorney General declaring Gregory McMeekin a vexatious litigant and preventing him from commencing or continuing proceedings in the Provincial Court of Alberta, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, and the Alberta Court of Appeal, subject to obtaining leave of the court. The draft order that was submitted by the Crown, with the amendment noted in oral submissions, is generally approved. I order the follow additions: 1. leave applications by Mr.

McMeekin to bring proceedings in any court are to be directed to Associate Chief Justice Rooke at Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, 6 th Floor, Law Courts Building, 1A Sir Winston Churchill Square, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0R2, in writing, and 2. leave of the Associate Chief Justice is not required to appeal of this decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 47 ] A transcript of these proceedings will be prepared and distributed to the parties at the Court’s expense. Heard on the 3 rd day of October, 2012. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 11 th day of October, 2012.

B.A. Browne J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Greg McMeekin for himself Marta Burns Alberta Justice & Solicitor General Civil Litigation Branch for the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Alberta