Re Onischuk, 2017 ABQB 663

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Re Onischuk, 2017 ABQB 663 Date: 20171101 Docket: 24 2007616 Registry: Edmonton Between: Daniel William Onischuk Applicant - and - Exelby & Partners Ltd, Gary Howitt, R. Donald Wilson, Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, et al, Canada Revenue Agency, et al Proposed Respondents _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Daniel William Onischuk [Mr.

Onischuk], a second time undischarged bankrupt, seeks leave of this Court to file an application in relation to his bankruptcy. Mr. Onischuk requires permission to take this step because he is subject to a number of vexatious litigant orders: • Onischuk v Alberta , 2013 ABQB 89 , as amended in Onischuk v Alberta , 2013 ABCA 129 (vacated October 25, 2017) • Re Onischuk , 2017 ABQB 553 (vacated October 25, 2017) [ Re Onischuk #1 ] • Onischuk v Edmonton (City) , 2017 ABQB 647 (in force October 25, 2017) [ Onischuk/Edmonton ]

• Re Onischuk , 2017 ABQB 659 [ Re Onischuk #2 ] (in force October 31, 2017) [ 2 ] Ms. Onischuk and his wife Therese Ann Onischuk [Ms. Onischuk] have an extensive and exponentiating history of abusing court processes via their litigation activities, which are reviewed in Onischuk/Edmonton , Re Onischuk #1 , and Re Onischuk #2 . They collaborate in their litigation misconduct. Mr. Onischuk uses his wife as a litigation proxy to evade court processes that were put in place to control Mr. Onischuk’s abuse of this Court and other Alberta Courts. [ 3 ] Mr.

Onischuk was required to obtain leave prior to filing or continuing any action in Alberta courts throughout the relevant period. Moreover, since October 25, 2017, he has been additionally prohibited, by the Onischuk/Edmonton order, from seeking leave to file or continue an action in Alberta Courts, except where he is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta. [ 4 ] Between July and the present there were a number of developments in Mr. Onischuk’s bankruptcy: July 18, 2017 - Mr. Onischuk applied for an absolute discharge.

Master Breitkreuz denied the application because the application was made without leave of the Court. September 1, 2017 - Mr. Onischuk filed an irregular document that sought an adjournment from September 14, 2017 to November 16, 2017 of two applications, one by himself, the other by his wife to re-open her bankruptcy proceeding. This was not a formal application. September 5, 2017 - The Trustee filed a Supplementary Report that indicated Mr. Onischuk had made no payments for the previous 24 months, and sought a Court Order for Mr.

Onischuk to pay $2,530.00 within 30 days, or else the creditors’ rights would be reinstated. September 6, 2017 - Mr. Onischuk filed another irregular communication seeking an adjournment to November 16, 2017. September 6, 2017 - The Department of Justice wrote to indicate it opposed the adjournment sought by Mr. Onischuk. September 8, 2017 - The Trustee wrote to indicate it does not consent to the adjournment sought by Mr. Onischuk. September 14, 2017 - Mr. Onischuk failed to appear at the scheduled 2:00 pm hearing. The Trustee’s September 5, 2017 application proceeded in his absence.

Master Schlosser granted the order sought. The Trustee explained that in his communication with Mr. Onischuk, Mr. Onischuk had denied he is subject to bankruptcy legislation. Mr. Onischuk had taken the position that that legislation is unconstitutional. September 29, 2017 - Mr. Onischuk faxed my office what purported to be a request for leave to file an application in relation to the September 14, 2017 order by Master Schlosser. October 3, 2017 – I wrote Mr. Onischuk and indicated the September 29 correspondence is not a proper leave application. October 12, 2017 – My office received an additional request by Mr.

Onischuk to seek leave of the court to take certain steps. [ 5 ] The October 12, 2017 correspondence requested: 1. leave to file an application and materials to appeal or vary the September 14, 2017 Master Schlosser order; 2. additional time to respond to the September 14, 2017 order; 3. leave to oppose discharge of the bankruptcy trustee; 4. “leave to take legal actions (compel prompt completion of bankruptcy discharge of all claimed debts, compel documentary affidavit proof of Trustee fees and any taxes owed and/or sue for damages and any other claims) against Exelby & Partners Ltd. et al, Canada Revenue Agency, et al, Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, et al”; 5. “to provide competent Duty Counsel”; and 6. “any further or other legal actions as may be required to aid above legal actions or those claims of my spouse”. [ 6 ] Mr.

Onischuk in his October 12, 2017 correspondence said he did not attend the September 14, 2017 hearing because a clerk told him the hearing was cancelled.

He also said the following: ... given that it was my application and my wifes application being heard jointly , there were reasonable grounds to adjourn and not to proceed 14 Sept, especially given that the 14 Sept hearing was allowed based on the 18 July decision of Master Breitkreuz to accept the 2002 Alberta Court of Appeal decision in BTI Corp v Gener SA that both actions of my spouse and mine were closely inter-related and should be heard together as they involved the same Respondents and identical Respondent caused problems ; [emphasis in original] [ 7 ] I have reviewed the Court’s recording of the July 18, 2017 appearance.

Mr. Onischuk’s statement is false, for several reasons. [ 8 ] First, the cited authority, BTI Corporation (Delaware) Inc v Gener SA , 2004 ABCA 125 , 346 AR 385, does not stand for the proposition claimed by Mr. Onischuk. This decision does not indicate that different actions should be linked where related. It says that where issues in a single action are interrelated then they should be heard and decided together. [ 9 ] Second, Master Breitkreuz did not accept or apply BTI Corporation (Delaware) Inc v Gener SA . He received that decision on July 18, but made no comment about it. When Mr.

Onischuk sought to have his matter adjourned to September 14, 2017, the Trustee observed that it was not in a position to respond to Mr. Onischuk because:

1. Onischuk was relying on an affidavit of Ms. Onischuk that was only received by the Trustee shortly before 5 pm the previous day, and 2, the Trustee had not had an opportunity to review and respond to BTI Corporation (Delaware) Inc v Gener SA , since that authority had only just been presented at the hearing. Thus, Master Breitkreuz then adjourned the matter because the Trustee could not respond to Mr. Onischuk’s late materials and his ‘application by ambush’. [ 10 ] Third, there is no ‘close inter-relationship’ between Mr. Onischuk’s bankruptcy, and that of his wife. Ms.

Onischuk received a full discharge on April 11, 2017. Her litigation was complete and finished. [ 11 ] However, there is a very ‘close inter-relationship’ between Ms. Onischuk’s attempt to re-open her bankruptcy and then engage in abusive litigation against the parties Mr. Onischuk also names in the October 12, 2017 documents. Ms. Onischuk’s abuse of court processes and this Court’s response to that is detailed in Re Onischuk #1 and Re Onischuk #2 . [ 12 ] Mr.

Onischuk in the October 12, 2017 documents sought to file an item titled: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL, LEAVE TO APPEAL OR VARY APPEAL, LEAVE TO FILE APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVITS, LEAVE TO COMPEL &/OR SUE RESPONDENTS This “Application” recites many of the same complaints made by Ms. Onischuk and that I have previously rejected, in Re Onischuk #1 and Re Onischuk #2 , as obvious abuse of this Court and the target litigants: Chutskoff v Bonora , 2014 ABQB 389 at para 92 , 590 AR 288, aff’d 2014 ABCA 444 . [ 13 ] For example, Mr.

Onischuk seeks many of the same impossible remedies demanded by his wife, such as that this court intrude on the jurisdiction of another tribunal and issue a “mandamus order or other type of order” to force the Tax Court of Canada “to vacate or quash” proceedings. Beyond being outside this Court’s jurisdiction, that step is an obvious collateral attack of valid court decisions, a very serious form of litigation misconduct. [ 14 ] Mr. Onischuk also sought to personally punish individual government employees he identifies as wrongdoers.

He argued that these respondents should pay “at least half” of court awards from their pensions and RRSPs, “... as a failsafe protection, that employers be held completely liable for any persons defaults.” [ 15 ] Mr. Onischuk also demanded remedies that do not even relate to himself.

He argued that his wife should receive tax refunds with interest calculated in excess of the amounts set by the Judgment Interest Act , RSA 2000, c J-1. [ 16 ] Other extraordinary remedies sought include: $100,000 GENERAL, AGGRAVATED &/OR SPECIAL DAMAGES FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 7 INFRINGEMENTS, NEGLIGENCE, OPPRESSION, MALICE, TARGETED MALICE, HARASSMENT, MISFEASANCE, BREACHES OF PUBLIC DUTY & TRUST ... ... TO EMPHASIZE FIDUCIARY REPONSIBILITY OF RESPONDENTS TO PUBLIC AND INDIVIDUALS, AND TO PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS FOR THE PUBLIC & PLAINTIFFS ADD $300,000 PUNITIVE OR SPECIAL DAMAGES ...

GENERAL,AGGRAVATED &/OR SPECIAL DAMAGES FOR THE RESPONDENTS INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY CAUSING DAMAGE TO DANIEL ONISCHUK (

i) PERSONAL CREDIT RATING (IMMEDIATE AND NEXT 7 YEARS); $100,000 ... (iii) TO ENSURE FUTURE PROTECTIONS FOR PLAINTIFF AND OTHER PEOPLE AND BUSINESS OWNERS : ADD PUNITIVE or SPECIAL DAMAGES OF $300,000 [ 17 ] I also note that the Attorney General of Canada has written to indicate that Mr. Onischuk’s proven bankruptcy claims to not include any outstanding debt to the Canada Revenue Agency. The Attorney General argued and I agree that Mr. Onischuk’s complaints against the Canada Revenue Agency have no basis in fact. [ 18 ] In Onischuk/Edmonton , at para 24, I concluded 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. [ 19 ] In Onischuk/Edmonton , Re Onischuk #1 , and Re Onischuk #2 I reported how Ms. Onischuk’s actions as Mr. Onischuk’s litigation proxy abused court processes. Here we see Mr. Onischuk carry that torch himself. [ 20 ] The October 12, 2017 documents Mr.

Onischuk seeks leave to file are a patently obvious abuse of court processes. They exhibit numerous indicia of litigation misconduct: Chutskoff v Bonora . The complaints and remedies broadly overlap with Ms. Onischuk’s now terminated attempts to re-open her bankruptcy. That is a first basis to reject Mr. Onischuk’s October 12, 2017 leave application. [ 21 ] Second, I conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr.

Onischuk’s claim that he thought the September 14, 2017 hearing in his bankruptcy action was cancelled is either false or was unreasonable. [ 22 ] A reasonable self-represented litigant would have read the Re Onischuk #1 judgment and order and recognized that those documents made no mention of Onischuk bankruptcy Docket #B24-2007616 action. The reasonable self-represented litigant would then take steps to attend the courtroom where the hearing was scheduled to enquire with the clerk as to the status of the Trustee’s application.

In addition, it makes no sense that an order that stays an application by Ms. Onischuk attacking the Trustee and others, and pending vexatious litigant status vs Ms. Onischuk, would also then be a reason to stay an application by the Trustee vs Mr. Onischuk to require Mr. Onischuk to pay the Trustee fees. These are two unrelated, and in many senses opposite , processes. [ 23 ] I note that Mr. and Ms. Onischuk have adopted what appears to be a tactic of making selective and irregular appearances before this Court in furtherance of their abuse of court.

For example, neither attended the October 4, 2017 Onischuk/Edmonton hearing. Then, on October 16, 2017, Ms. Onischuk attempted to bypass the Court-ordered leave to file restrictions by Mr. Onischuk appearing in this Court, purportedly representing his wife, and in contempt of both his and her vexatious litigant restriction orders. This supports my conclusion that Mr. Onischuk’s failure to attend court on September 14, 2017 was a tactical choice, rather than a genuine error by a ‘fair dealer’ self-represented litigant. [ 24 ] In conclusion, I deny leave to Mr. Onischuk to file the October 12, 2017 documents.

That decision is final, and he may not re- apply for leave in relation to any subject or issue found in the October 12, 2017 documents. [ 25 ] I stress to Mr. Onischuk that he is now subject to the court access restrictions indicated in Onischuk/Edmonton and Re Onischuk #2 . He faces potential contempt of court and other sanctions if he continues to breach the terms of unappealed court orders. No appearances Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 1 st day of November 2017. J.D. Rooke J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Daniel William Onischuk Self-Represented Litigant (by document only)