Onischuk v Edmonton (City), 2017 ABQB 647

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Onischuk v Edmonton (City), 2017 ABQB 647 Date: 20171025 Docket: 1703 17218 Registry: Edmonton Between: Therese A. Onischuk Respondent / Appellant - and - The City of Edmonton, Mayor Don Iveson, City of Edmonton Assessment and Taxation Branch, Rod Risling, Bill Mannion, Edmonton Local Assessment Review Board, Lillian Lundgren, Brian Carbol Applicants / Respondents _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction

[ 1 ] On August 28, 2017, Therese A. Onischuk [Ms. Onischuk] filed in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench an “Originating Application for Leave to Appeal, and Leave for a Judicial Review and for Leave to Sue” [Originating Application]. In brief, this document complains that the City of Edmonton [Edmonton] and the Edmonton Local Assessment Review Board [ELARB] have incorrectly assessed the value of a residential property owned by Ms. Onischuk, and then, in error, ordered Ms.

Onischuk to pay municipal taxes that are too high. [ 2 ] Municipal Government Act , RSA 2000, c M-26, s 470(1) does permit this Court to review a decision of the ELARB in relation to residential tax assessments. However, the Originating Application goes much further than that. Ms. Onischuk also seeks, among other things: 1. civil actions for fraudulent concealment against the “City Respondents”; 2. an order to “immediately suspend and reduce” the 2010-2017 property assessments of Ms.

Onischuk’s residence, to “cancel all fines, interests, and penalties” and registrations on the Onischuk property; 3. that all the respondents’ legal costs are denied; 4. “$45,000 for general &/or aggravated damages for negligence, lost time & wages, undue distress, negligence, oppression, bad faith or lack of good faith, malice, targeted malice, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and of trust”; 5. “$30,000 punitive damages for Charter civil rights violations & infringements, and for abuse-breach(es) of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, public duty of trust”; 6. double or triple items 4 and 5 “to ensure future civil rights and protections for the public & plaintiffs”; 7. a total of $8,350.00 in “Quantum Meruit” costs; 8. that the individuals named as respondents should be made to personally pay costs and damages “... to emphasize Respondents direct personal responsibility and liability - which should motivate better care and attention for better protection of taxpayers ...”; and 9. that all costs and damages are a “constructive trust remedy so as to clearly separate from any bankruptcy issues”. [ 3 ] While Ms.

Onischuk’s husband Daniel Onischuk [Mr. Onischuk] is not a named party to this action, Ms. Onischuk seeks leave to have him represent her. The September 11, 2017 Affidavit of Ms. Onischuk that accompanied the Originating Application indicates that Mr. Onischuk was “... my appointed representative to research and argue these matters” at the 2016 and 2017 ELARB appeals. She further indicates Mr. Onischuk should represent her in this Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench proceeding, that should be a trial by jury. [ 4 ] Mr.

Onischuk has previously been declared a vexatious litigant per Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2, ss 23-23.1 and is required to obtain leave before filing or continuing litigation in any Alberta court. [ 5 ] On September 26, 2017, Edmonton applied: 1. to have Ms. Onischuk made subject to permanent court access filing restrictions by expanding the interim order I made in Re Onischuk , 2017 ABQB 553 at para 22 , per Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1; 2. that Iveson, Risling and Mannion be removed as parties; and 3. that this action is stayed until Ms.

Onischuk applies for leave to continue the action. [ 6 ] Edmonton alleges that the Originating Application duplicates the same allegations as two previous actions: Onischuk v Edmonton , Docket #1503-19515 and Onischuk v Edmonton Local Assessment Review Board , Docket #1603-14329. Both these actions were dismissed on November 30, 2016.

These previous actions made the same complaints concerning unfair residential tax assessments, and had spuriously named individuals who are also respondents to the current action, Iveson, Risling, and Mannion, who could not be a subject of a residential property assessment appeal, per Municipal Government Act , s 535. An appeal was filed in the Alberta Court of Appeal for the #1603-14329 action on January 8, 2017.

On May 4, 2017, that appeal was struck out by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal as incomplete. [ 7 ] Edmonton argues that the Originating Application contains many indicia of abusive litigation: 1. collateral attacks that re-litigate decided issues; 2. seeking impossible relief, including the damages awards and claims of Charter breaches; 3. seeking grossly disproportionate damages and costs; 4. including third party respondents that could serve no legitimate purpose, which indicates an ulterior or collateral purpose; 5. unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, misfeasance, and conspiracy; 6. failure to honour court-ordered obligations; 7. abuse of court processes via a December 23, 2016 ex parte application made without notice to obtain audio recordings of court proceedings; and

7. inflammatory language. [ 8 ] Edmonton also submits that the litigation misconduct described in Re Onischuk illustrates a broader pattern of abuse of court processes involving Ms. Onischuk and her husband. That too is relevant to whether court access control is warranted. Edmonton argues Mr. Onischuk is the directing mind behind this litigation. Edmonton says Ms.

Onischuk will predictably engage in further abusive litigation under the direction of her husband, unless the Court intervenes and makes her subject to court access restrictions. [ 9 ] Counsel for the ELARB on September 28, 2017 applied to have Lundgren and Carbol removed from this action as the Originating Application contains no allegations against them, they are immune from liability per Municipal Government Act , s 484, and therefore the litigation against Lundgren and Carbol is an abuse of court processes. [ 10 ] The Edmonton and Lundgren and Carbol applications were heard on October 4, 2017. Neither Ms.

Onischuk nor any representative for Ms. Onischuk appeared at that hearing. The Applicants provided evidence that Ms. Onischuk was served, which I accepted. I therefore proceeded in Ms. Onischuk’s absence and: 1. removed Iveson, Risling, Mannion, Lundgren and Carbol from this action; 2. placed strict court access restrictions on Mr. and Ms. Onischuk; 3. on the Court’s own motion struck out the Originating Application, though Ms. Onischuk was given leave to apply within 60 days to revive the action; 4. ordered Ms.

Onischuk pay Edmonton $1,000.00 in costs; and 5. indicated that the Court would prepare the form of order for the Onischuks’ court access restrictions, and Ms. Onischuk’s approval of that order would not be necessary. [ 11 ] At the October 4, 2017 hearing I indicated that I would prepare reasons to further explain the basis of my decision. These are those reasons. [ 12 ] Between October 4 and the present there has been further activity by the Onischuks. These reasons will also review and in part respond to those activities.

I stress that my October 4, 2017 decision is not based on the Onischuk’s post-October 4, 2017 activities. However, as is obvious from these post-October 4, 2017 developments, court intervention is required to address the now escalating abuse of court by Daniel and Therese Onischuk. II. Abuse of Court Processes [ 13 ] Some background is helpful to provide context to this decision. Edmonton argues that Ms. Onischuk is a litigation proxy for Mr. Onischuk. I came to the same conclusion in Re Onischuk at paras 15-16 , and decided that Ms. Onischuk may require the same court access restrictions as Mr.

Onischuk, per Judicature Act , s 23(4). [ 14 ] This means it is necessary to first examine Mr. Onischuk’s very problematic litigation record.

When considering whether to order court access restrictions a court should reference the putative abusive litigant’s entire dispute-related activities, inside and outside court, in administrative tribunals and other bodies, in other jurisdictions, and where public records are a basis to take judicial notice: reviewed in Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017 ABQB 237 at para 101 , 54 Alta LR (6th) 135; 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee) , 2017 ABQB 548 at para 13 . A.

Daniel Onischuk’s Abusive Litigation History [ 15 ] As I have previously indicated, Daniel Onischuk has been declared a vexatious litigant per Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1. At the time of this application he was prohibited from filing or continuing any action in all Alberta Courts, except with leave of the relevant Chief Judge, Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Justice. [ 16 ] Mr. Onischuk’s history of problematic litigation began with a lawsuit against Canadian National Railway Co., Alberta and Canada, many government actors and organs, and associated individuals and employees. Mr.

Onischuk claimed to have been injured as a consequence of a railroad spill of materials into Lake Wabamun: Onischuk v Canadian National Railway Co , 2010 ABCA 411 , 195 ACWS (3d) 912. This action was eventually struck out. Mr. Onischuk had made many baseless allegations, and not pursued the action in a timely manner. [ 17 ] Mr. Onischuk follows that with three lawsuits: 1.

A Federal Court action that largely duplicated the first CN lawsuit, and which was struck out for lack of jurisdiction, failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, futility, and abuse of process: Onischuk v Alberta (6 April 2011), Edmonton T-26-11 (FC), aff’d (11 May 2011), Edmonton T-26-11 (FC), aff’d (16 September 2011), Edmonton A-225-11 (FCA), reconsideration denied (13 October 2011), Edmonton A-225-11 (FCA). Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused: Onischuk v Alberta , 34528 (23 February 2012) (SCC). 2. A second Alberta action that again duplicated the first CN lawsuit.

I struck out this lawsuit as an abuse of process and as having no reasonable basis: Onischuk v Alberta , 2013 ABQB 89 , 555 AR 330. I also ordered that Mr. Onischuk should be subject to broad court access restrictions, with one exception: a then ongoing action against the Town of Canmore. 3. In 2011 Mr. Onischuk made an unsuccessful contract bid in response to the Town of Canmore’s need to address a feral rabbit

issue. Mr. Onischuk was unsuccessful in that bid, and then sought an injunction from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to block the Town’s rabbit control steps. The application was struck out; Mr. Onischuk lacked standing. That result was confirmed by the Alberta Court of Appeal: Onischuk v Alberta , 2013 ABCA 129 , 227 ACWS (3d) 996. This was abusive “busybody” litigation. The Court of Appeal expanded the vexatious litigant order I had made in Onischuk v Alberta , 2013 ABQB 89 to remove the exception in that order.

The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently denied leave: Onischuk v Canmore , 35472 (23 January 2014), reconsideration applications not accepted for filing (8 October 2014) (17 February 2015) (18 March 2015). B.

Collaborative Litigation Abuse by Therese and Daniel Onischuk [ 18 ] The next development was two purported appeals of the ELARB confirmation of Edmonton’s residential property assessments of the Onischuks’ residence: Onischuk v Edmonton , Docket #1503-19515 and Onischuk v Edmonton Local Assessment Review Board , Docket #1603-14329. [ 19 ] The Statement of Claim for Docket #1503-19515 is unorthodox and amorphous, but is probably best described as a tort lawsuit with certain aspects of a judicial review of the ELARB decision, which: 1. inappropriately names uninvolved parties (Iveson, Risling, Branch); 2. makes spurious rights-based claims, for example, Charter s 15 is invoked when there is no alleged basis for discrimination on an enumerated ground; 3. makes numerous bald allegations of misconduct; 4. advances claims that are outside the jurisdiction of the Court in an ELARB review, such as breaches of trust and duty of care; and 5. seeks inappropriate remedies such as punitive damages and general damages. [ 20 ] Ms.

Onischuk is the named party in the Docket #1503-19515 action, but explicitly sought to have Mr. Onischuk represent her, despite an order from Yungwirth J which prohibited that. [ 21 ] Without going into great detail, I accept Edmonton’s characterization that the Docket #1603-14329 and current matter raise essentially the same grounds as the Docket #1503-19515 action. In these actions Ms. Onischuk explicitly indicates that Mr. Onischuk is involved in this litigation. She wants him to represent her. Mr.

Onischuk was initially named as a party in the Docket #1603-14329 action and sought leave to participate in that action, which was denied. [ 22 ] The Docket #1503-19515 and #1603-14329 actions were dismissed on November 30, 2016. Ms. Onischuk appealed the latter action but that appeal was dismissed as incomplete on May 4, 2017. [ 23 ] I recently, in Re Onischuk , 2017 ABQB 553 , evaluated an application by Ms. Onischuk to re-open her bankruptcy action, despite that she had received an absolute discharge.

In that decision, I concluded that this litigation exhibited multiple indicia of abusive litigation (paras 10-14) and that Mr. Onischuk was intimately involved with and in fact directing that litigation (paras 15-16, 20). C. Conclusion [ 24 ] I conclude that Therese and Daniel Onischuk are operating in a coordinated manner with Daniel Onischuk directing their litigation. He turned to his wife as a litigation proxy when he was made subject to court access restrictions that interdicted his abuse of Alberta Courts.

On that basis I evaluate these two individuals as a unit, since that is in fact how they operate. [ 25 ] The pre-October 4, 2017 litigation history of Mr. and Ms. Onischuk exhibits practically every one of the indicia of abusive litigation identified in Chutskoff v Bonora , 2014 ABQB 389 at para 92 , 590 AR 288, aff’d 2014 ABCA 444 : 1. Collateral attacks on decided issues and attempts to circumvent prior court orders.

For example, the current ELARB appeal seeks to undo many years of assessments, despite unsuccessful challenges to historic ELARB decisions in the Onischuk’s Docket #1503-19515 and #1603-14329 actions. 2. Hopeless proceedings, including impossible or disproportionate relief. I agree with Edmonton on this item, and also note the extraordinary demand in Re Onischuk , 2017 ABQB 553 that this Court intrude into the jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada. 3. Escalating proceedings, where issues repeat and accumulate in subsequent actions. This is clear in both the CN litigation and the ELARB actions.

The bankruptcy action reviewed in Re Onischuk , 2017 ABQB 553 obviously exhibits the abusive pattern where participants in litigation become targets for sanction as the matter evolves. 4. Edmonton suggests that the Onischuk’s repeatedly naming Iveson, Risling and Mannion in the ELARB actions has an ulterior purpose. I agree. I also note that the Onischuks’ recent actions demand that individual government employee defendants are personally made to pay damages and cost awards. A parallel demand was made in Re Onischuk , at para 8 .

That is clearly an attempt to retaliate, harass, harm, and oppress persons the Onischuks perceive as wrongdoers. That, too, is an improper litigation purpose. 5. The Canmore rabbit control action is a classic “busybody” action by an uninvolved third party. 6. Mr. Onischuk has persistently attempted to bypass legitimate unappealed court-access restrictions, now employing his wife as a litigation proxy. This is clearly an attempt to circumvent the operation of court orders. 7. The Onischuks’ have an obvious pattern of engaging in unsuccessful challenges to decided judgments, including unsuccessful

appeals, incomplete and abandoned appeals, and reconsideration applications. 8. Unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracy, fraud, and misconduct. For example in the Originating Application Ms. Onischuk claims to have advanced: ... evidence of many other nearby “special friends of the City” getting special treatment of significantly lower rates of taxation ( 20% to 50% ) ... 9. Scandalous and inflammatory language, as identified by Edmonton in its Application and Brief. [ 26 ] This broad-based and lengthy history of litigation misconduct is very troubling.

The Onischuks have, with no valid purpose, consumed much government and court resources. They are undeterred by negative court action and criticism. There is no question that court access restrictions are necessary to bring this abuse of court processes under control. III. Court Access Restrictions [ 27 ] Justice Verville, in Hok v Alberta , 2016 ABQB 651 at paras 35-37 , 273 ACWS (3d) 533, leave denied 2017 ABCA 63 , leave to the SCC requested, 37624 (12 April 2017), set the modern approach to the design of court access restrictions in response to abusive litigation.

This is a prospective case management step that responds to anticipated abuse of court processes. When designing limits on future court access a court asks: 1. Can the court determine the identity or type of persons who are likely to be the target of future abusive litigation? 2. What litigation subject or subjects are likely involved in that abuse of court processes? 3.

In what forums will that abuse occur? [ 28 ] I note that in Tupper v Nova Scotia (Attorney General) , 2015 NSCA 92 at paras 51-52 , 390 DLR (4th) 651, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36761 (10 March 2016), MacDonald CJNS concluded that where a court identifies a history of litigation abuse, that creates a presumption that court access restrictions should have a global scope.

To date this has not been the approach in Alberta, however, Chief Justice MacDonald’s observations have merit, particularly when viewed in light of the “culture shift” instructed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v Mauldin , 2014 SCC 7 at para 2 , [2014] 1 SCR 87, R v Jordan , 2016 SCC 27 , [2016] 1 SCR 631, and R v Cody , 2017 SCC 31 , 411 DLR (4th) 619. [ 29 ] A requirement that an abusive litigant obtain leave to initiate or continue litigation has a minor and constitutionally valid impact on a person’s right to access court remedies: Hok v Alberta , at paras 30-33. [ 30 ] Mr.

Onischuk has previously been required to obtain leave prior to initiating or continuing any litigation in all three Alberta Courts. He has not appealed the decisions that imposed those restrictions. His continued in-court misconduct via his proxy, Ms. Onischuk, only confirms that Mr. Onischuk will predictably abuse court processes, where and how he desires, with futile, abusive litigation. [ 31 ] I conclude that Ms. Onischuk is now a full participant in Mr. Onischuk’s ongoing abuse of court processes. She, too, is therefore a suitable target for broad court access restrictions.

It is clearly foreseeable that unless restrained she will engage in abusive trial and appeal litigation in multiple topic areas that target a broad and expanding range of litigation victims. [ 32 ] While a requirement to obtain leave is a comparatively minor imposition on an abusive litigant, I conclude that, in this case, stricter court access restrictions are appropriate given Mr. Onischuk’s practice of using proxy actors to advance his abusive litigation strategies, and the manner in which he and Ms. Onischuk communicate with the Court and abuse the leave to file process.

For example, on September 29, 2017 he sought leave to challenge a court order in a manner which did not conform to court-ordered procedures. [ 33 ] On that basis I order an additional and more intrusive step, per Boe v Boe , 2014 BCCA 208 at para 36 , 356 BCAC 217; Re Boisjoli , 2015 ABQB 629 at paras 108-109 , 29 Alta LR (6th) 334; Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General) , at paras 185-87 ; Re Gauthier , 2017 ABQB 555 at para 83 ; Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors (No 2) , [2003] EWCA Civ 1113 at para 35 (UK CA). Mr. and Ms.

Onischuk are prohibited from making any leave application to the Alberta Provincial Court, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or Alberta Court of Appeal, except where that filing is made by a member of the Law Society of Alberta.

This step is necessary to preserve the functionality of these Courts, which is in itself a valid objective of court access restrictions: Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors (No 2) , at paras 8-10, 54; Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General) , at paras 181-84 . [ 34 ] These restrictions are equally justified under either this Court’s inherent jurisdiction to control its own processes ( Hok v Alberta , at paras 14-25; Thompson v International Union of Operating Engineers Local No 955 , 2017 ABQB 210 at para 56 , aff’d 2017 ABCA 193 ; Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General) , at paras 92-96 ; McCargar v Canada , 2017 ABQB 416 at para 110 ; 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee) , at para 7 ; Re Gauthier , 2017 ABQB 555 at para 69 ) or Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1.

I agree with Thomas J ( 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee) , at paras 42-79 ) that the former authority provides a more functional and proportionate mechanism to respond to abusive litigation. [ 35 ] I therefore order: 1.

Daniel William Onischuk and Therese Ann Onischuk are prohibited, under the inherent jurisdiction of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, on his or her own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate, without an order of the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted, or his or her designate.

2. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person. 3.

Daniel William Onischuk must describe himself, in the application or document to which this Order applies, as “Daniel William Onischuk”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym. 4, Therese Ann Onischuk must describe herself, in the application or document to which this Order applies, as “Therese Ann Onischuk”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym. 5. Any application for leave by Daniel William Onischuk will only be accepted if Daniel William Onischuk is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta. 6.

Any application for leave by Therese Ann Onischuk will only be accepted if Therese Ann Onischuk is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta. 7. Paragraphs 5 and 6 do not apply to any appeal of the within decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal. 8. Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit: (

i) attaching a copy of the Order arising from this Decision, restricting Daniel William Onischuk’s and Therese Ann Onischuk’s access to the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and Provincial Court of Alberta; (ii) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Daniel William Onischuk or Therese Ann Onischuk proposes to issue or file or continue; (iii) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it; (iv) indicating whether Daniel William Onischuk and Therese Ann Onischuk have ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars; (

v) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and (vi) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding. 9. Any application referenced herein shall be made in writing. 10. The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may: (

i) give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if they so choose, to:

a) the involved potential parties;

b) other relevant persons identified by the Court; and

c) the Attorney Generals of Alberta and Canada. (ii) respond to the leave application in writing; and (iii) hold the application in open Court where it shall be recorded. 11. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs. 12. An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly. 13.

An application to vary or set aside this Order must be made on no less than five days notice to the Respondents and any other person as directed by the Court. [ 36 ] This Order takes effect immediately. [ 37 ] This Order replaces the previous vexatious litigant restrictions on Mr. and Ms. Onischuk. I therefore immediately vacate: 1. the Vexatious Litigant Order restricting Mr. Onischuk issued in Docket 1103-00285, dated November 26, 2012 (reported as Onischuk v Alberta , 2013 ABQB 89 ), and amended in Onischuk v Alberta , 2013 ABCA 129 ; and 2. the Interim Vexatious Litigant Order restricting Ms.

Onischuk issued in Docket #24-2007617, dated September 13, 2017 and amended September 22, 2017 (reported as Re Onischuk , 2017 ABQB 553 ). Notwithstanding that this Order replaces the previous court access controls on Mr. and Ms. Onischuk, the restrictions in the previous orders remain valid. [ 38 ] The Court shall prepare the appropriate order to reflect the court access restrictions imposed on Mr. and Ms. Onischuk. Mr. and Ms. Onischuk’s approval is not required for the form of order.

IV. The Originating Application [ 39 ] In Edmonton’s application and at the October 4, 2017 hearing, Counsel for Edmonton proposed that the Originating Application be stayed until a later hearing scheduled for October 16, 2017, when Edmonton intended to apply to have the matter struck out. [ 40 ] It is clear from my review of the Originating Application, and the Docket #1503-19515 and #1603-14329 actions, that Ms. Onischuk is simply attempting to re-litigate issues that were previously dismissed or abandoned on appeal.

As I observed at the October 4, 2017 hearing, there is no point for this Court’s or the Defendants’ resources being wasted in an unnecessary hearing where the result is obvious. I therefore struck out the Originating Application, entirely. [ 41 ] At the October 4, 2017 hearing I ordered that I would grant leave to Ms. Onischuk to apply to me within 60 days of the date of this judgment to restore the Originating Application, but only if Ms. Onischuk makes that application while represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta. As I discuss below in

Part V, an invalid application for leave to continue the now struck Docket #1703-17218 action was received by myself on October 16, 2017 [the October 16 documents]. [ 42 ] I am also satisfied that there was no basis on which Iveson, Risling, Mannon, Lundgren and Carbol are potentially involved in the ELARB review. I therefore order these persons are removed from this action. [ 43 ] Edmonton sought $1,000.00 in costs. That amount is eminently reasonable. The costs order is granted. Ms.

Onischuk is to pay $1,000.00, immediately. [ 44 ] I direct that counsel for the Edmonton is to prepare an Order, in terms acceptable to the Court: 1. striking out of the Originating Application; 2. removing Iveson, Risling, Mannon, Lundgren and Carbol as Defendants; 3. granting Ms. Onischuk leave to apply to restore the Originating Application within 60 days of this decision; and 4. the award of costs against Ms. Onischuk. Ms. Onischuk’s approval is not required for the form of order. V.

Post-October 4, 2017 Events [ 45 ] As indicated in the introduction to these Reasons I will also document the Onischuk’s post-October 4, 2017 activities in relation to this file. More generally, the Onischuks have made increasingly vitriolic complaints about their circumstances and the Courts. [ 46 ] October 14, 2017 - Mr. Onischuk emailed myself and counsel for Edmonton and the ELARB the October 16 documents, two documents allegedly related to Docket 1703-17218. Both purport to be applications.

The second replacement document is titled: Amended-Amended Application for Leave to Continue Amend and Temporarily Adjourn Originating Application for Leave to Appeal, and Leave for Judicial Review and for Leave to Sue Amended Application for Leave to Stay City Tax Collection, Interests and Penalties And to Adjourn and/or Stay Respondent Application to Remove Lillian Lundgren, Brain Carbol as Parties And to Adjourn and/or Stay City of Edmonton Application to Deem Applicant a Vexatious Litigant This essentially restates the complaints found in the Docket 1703-17218 and earlier and previously terminated residential tax assessment actions.

The document alleges that Ms. Onischuk is not subject to restriction per the interim court access restriction order in Docket #24- 2007617 because that interim restriction is “implicitly unfair and unreasonable”, improper, and caused by my “ongoing unjust palpable bias” against the Onischuks. Among other things the document seeks a stay of the Edmonton and ELARB applications that I had heard on October 4, 2017, and that action proceed at a later date and be: ... reviewed, heard and decided outside of Edmonton and the influences of ACJ Rooke.

ACJ Rooke to be recused from all 1703-17218 applications, reviews & decisions due to palpable bias and excess unfairness demonstrated in prior & other actions. [ 47 ] October 16, 2017 - Mr. Onischuk appeared before Renke J in relation to the October 16, documents. Daniel Onischuk self- identified. Renke J dismissed the application as not being properly before the Court and concluded: 1. the October 16, 2017 application was made in contempt of the September 13, 2017, amended September 22, 2017, Docket #24- 2007617 order restricting court access by Ms. Onischuk; 2. that Mr.

Onischuk was prohibited from representing Ms. Onischuk via Legal Profession Act , RSA 2000, c L-8; and 3. that Mr. Onischuk is prohibited from taking litigation steps on behalf of any other person, per the vexatious litigant order filed in Docket #1103-00285, dated November 26, 2012.

Justice Renke refused to receive either arguments or materials from Mr. Onischuk. [48] After that hearing Ms. Onischuk provided my office with a large package of materials attached to a cover letter identifyingDocket #1703-17218 and with the subject “Request for Leave to Continue”. This includes the October 16 documents materials,supporting affidavits, and various authorities.

The cover letter reads: Per your Vexatious Litigant Order 13 Sept 2017 against me, I request leave to commence this action regarding 2017 Property TaxAssessment which was commenced 28 Aug 2017 and with substantial new evidence filed 11 Sept 2017. Given my application to Vary, Appeal & Vacate your Vexatious Order, I also request that due to your prior palable judicial bias in the1503-19515 and 1603-13429 actions that you recuse yourself from the Appeal files for those actions as well as for this request tocontinue this action 1703-17218 and from any further involvement in this action against the City, et al.

I enclose an Application to Adjourn, and the additional case laws, in particular and excerpt from Baker v Canada(SCC), 1999 2 SCR 817 para 18-28. 45-47, 52-63 which applies to your judicial biases as well as the Respondents for all my actionagainst unjust City assessments and ARB complicity to aid & abet unjust City assessments. For your refusal from this application, please also refer to the case laws provided for my Application to Vary, Appeal & Vacate yourVexatious Order & Decision. [49] October 17, 2017 - I received a fax from Ms. Onischuk dated October 17, 2017.

This responds to the October 16, 2017appearance of Mr. Onischuk before Renke J, who is incorrectly identified as “Judge DC Read”. It complains that Justice Renke hadrefused to receive either arguments or documents. This, purportedly, is something an “average person” would find unfair, unreasonable,and “excessively harsh”. The fax continues: J. [Renke] failed procedural fairness, fairness, natural justice and fundamental justice infringing my Charter Rights to a fair and fair trial,denied me fair access to the legal system, a discriminatory, cruel & unusual treatment or punishment.

Judge [Renke’s] callous disregardfor my civil rights, my statutory rights of appeal to QB Court, core (not merely procedural) legal issues, unjust taxes and injuries to meand our community is unjustifiable and a symptom of Court system moral failings. Although Judge [Renke] usually could decide whether leave to appeal or vary his Order should be granted, however, once he heard thatyou had previously (and unfairly) deemed me a vexatious litigant, he was not interested in reading my adjournment documents of hearinganything to fairly adjourn the matter- indicating an unfair bias.

He also knew beforehand that my husband was deemed a vexatiouslitigant - which indicates some other background communications from either you or from the Respondents were going on with Judge[Renke] before, and without informing either me or my spouse for any perspective or awareness. Ms. Onischuk then demands I recuse myself “due to palpable judicial bias and gross unfairness” from the three Onischuk residential taxchallenge actions. The fax also complains that Edmonton and the ELARB can been “communicating with your secretary privately”. [50] As I previously observed, these activities and Ms.

Onischuk’s statements simply reinforce the need for steps to restrict abuseof Alberta courts by Mr. and Ms. Onischuk. [51] I believe it is useful at this point to clarify the status of Ms. Onischuk’s various attempts to continue the Docket #1703-17218action. The application heard by Justice Renke on October 16, 2017 was dismissed. If Ms. Onischuk disagrees with that result then herremedy is to appeal that decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal. That application would require leave of the Chief Justice of that Court,given the restrictions I have placed on Ms.

Onischuk in this decision. [52] As for the package of materials received by my office on October 16, 2017, with the “Request for Leave to Continue” subjectletter, I will treat those materials as an application to reinstate the Docket #1703-17218 application. However, that request for leave isstayed until Ms. Onischuk retains a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta to submit written arguments in relation to theOctober 16, 2017 filings. Those written arguments may be accompanied by additional lawyer filed and prepared supporting authoritiesand affidavit evidence.

If no such written arguments are received by January 8, 2018 then the October 16, 2017 “Request for Leave toContinue” is denied. VI. Conclusion [53] The Originating Application is struck out. Ms. Onischuk is ordered to pay $1,000.00 in costs to Edmonton, immediately. [54] Mr. and Ms. Onischuk are vexatious litigants whose litigation misconduct predicts broad-based, persistent abuse of courtprocesses, and attempts to circumvent legitimate controls on court procedure.

Therefore, they are both appropriate subjects of broadcourt access restrictions, and require leave prior to initiating or continuing litigation in the Provincial Court of Alberta, the Alberta Courtof Queen’s Bench, and Alberta Court of Appeal. [55] If Mr. and Ms.

Onischuk disagree with my conclusion to order strict court access restrictions then their remedy is to appealthese Reasons for Decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal, with leave being required from the Chief Justice of Alberta, or her designate. [56] I caution the Onischuks that inappropriate and/or irregular communications with court actors may result in further restrictionof their court-related activities. I stress no further communications from Mr. or Ms.

Onischuk in relation to this action or any other actionin this Court will be accepted by my office unless those communications are made by a member in good standing of the Law Society ofAlberta.

Heard on the 4 th day of October 2017. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 25 th day of October 2017. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: No appearance for the Respondent Therese Onischuk Michael S. Gunther City of Edmonton Law Branch for the Applicants The City of Edmonton, Mayor Don Iveson, City of Edmonton Assessment and Taxation Branch, Rod Risling, Bill Mannion Kate L. Hurlburt, Q.C. Emery Jamieson LLP for the Applicants Edmonton Local Assessment Review Board, Lillian Lundgren, Brian Carbol