Stewart v Schumacher, 2019 ABQB 917

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Stewart v Schumacher, 2019 ABQB 917 Date: 20191202 Docket: 1901 09650 Registry: Calgary Between: Krystal Stewart Plaintiff - and - John Schumacher Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I.

Introduction [ 1 ] This matter has an unusual and rather disturbing history. [ 2 ] In July 2019, the Plaintiff, Krystal Stewart, sought and was granted a civil restraining order against the Defendant, John Schumacher, who she alleged was harassing her. Ms. Stewart works as an announcer for a radio station and Mr. Schumacher was a listener. They have no prior relationship. [ 3 ] On November 6, 2019, Mr. Schumacher appeared in chambers as a self-represented litigant. He presented three documents and sought enforcement thereof.

It was subsequently determined that those documents were not valid as they had not been properly filed with the Court. [ 4 ] On November 19, 2019, I issued an Endorsement finding that the documents presented by Mr. Schumacher were not valid and that none of the parties named therein had any legal responsibility to respond to those documents: Stewart v Schumacher , 2019 ABQB 883 . I also issued an Order placing interim court access restrictions on Mr.

Schumacher pending the Court’s further review of the matter. [ 5 ] Based on his actions to date and on the content of the invalid documents he presented in chambers, it appears that Mr. Schumacher is engaged in abusive litigation. Accordingly, I find that it is appropriate to assess whether Mr. Schumacher should be made subject to ongoing court access restrictions. II. Analysis

[ 6 ] The modern approach to court access restrictions issued under this Court’s inherent jurisdiction in response to abusive litigation was set out in Hok v Alberta , 2016 ABQB 651 . This is a prospective case management step that responds to anticipated abuse of court processes; it is imposed where future abusive litigation is anticipated.

The scope of the restrictions depends upon the level of anticipated future litigation abuse, but the most common court access restriction prohibits a person from initiating or continuing litigation except with leave of the Court: Hok at paras 34-37 . [ 7 ] In Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 (“ Unrau #2 ”) at para 559 , I summarized the process the Court undertakes as follows: Instead, vexatious litigant order proceedings are conducted by the Court following the two-part Hok v Alberta #2 process, which was first applied in Hok v Alberta #1 , court restrictions imposed Hok v Alberta #2 .

The Court: 1. issues a first decision on its own motion and under its inherent jurisdiction that:

a) identifies indicia of abusive litigation relevant to the candidate abusive litigant,

b) reviews the law and principles that guide when and how the Court imposes court access restrictions,

c) invites written submissions and affidavit evidence from the candidate abusive litigant and other parties, and sets deadlines for those materials, and

d) imposes interim court access restrictions. 2. receives those materials, if any, and 3. issues a second decision that:

a) reviews the total information available to the court relevant to the candidate abusive litigant, including information from the candidate abusive litigant,

b) determines whether that information predicts abusive litigation activity from the candidate abusive litigant which warrants court access restrictions,

c) assesses the plausible future litigation misconduct of the candidate abusive litigant as to subject matter, parties, forums, and special aggravating factors,

d) imposes ongoing court access restrictions that respond to the plausible future litigation conduct, if appropriate, and

e) terminates the interim court access restrictions. [ 8 ] Accordingly, the first step is to determine whether a litigant has exhibited certain “indicia” of abusive litigation that I summarized in Unrau #2 as follows: a. collateral attacks; b. hopeless proceedings; c. escalating or expanding proceedings; d. proceedings with an improper purpose; e. attempts to evade Court litigation management; f. persistent unsuccessful appeals; g. failure to abide by Court orders; h. inappropriate demeanour or unjustified belief. A. Hopeless Proceedings [ 9 ] Even if Mr.

Schumacher’s documents were authentic and might give rise to a valid proceeding, and I already have found that they are not authentic, the relief he sought is disproportionate, insufficiently supported by the proven facts and/or not within the Court’s jurisdiction to grant. [ 10 ] For example, he asks “Pay an amount proportional to damages incurred to John Burton Schumacher based on ten years imprisoned.” There is nothing before me to suggest that Mr. Schumacher was in prison for ten years. Nor is it clear on what basis he would seek this relief from Ms.

Stewart’s employer, the Radio Station, or its owner (the “Owner”). [ 11 ] Mr. Schumacher also asks that the Court order Ms. Stewart, the Radio Station and/or the Owner to “unblock” him on social media. The Court has no jurisdiction to make such an order. [ 12 ] On a more troubling note, Mr. Schumacher professes concern for Ms. Stewart’s mental health and seeks that she “do 2 weeks at the hospital”. While this Court does have some jurisdiction over mentally disordered persons under the terms of the Judicature Act ,

RSA 2000, c J-2 and the Mental Health Act , RSA 2000, c M-13 , there is nothing before me to suggest that Ms. Stewart is in need of mental health services. Nor is it clear on what basis Mr. Schumacher would have standing to bring any such application. B. Escalating or Expanding Proceedings [ 13 ] Not surprisingly, Ms. Stewart’s original application named only herself and Mr. Schumacher. In his invalid documents, Mr. Schumacher has attempted to bring the Radio Station and the Owner into the proceedings on the grounds that they are somehow “responsible” for Ms. Stewart and her alleged “distressed” state.

This, in my view, is sufficient to make out this indicium. C. Proceedings with an Improper Purpose [ 14 ] It is clear to me that this indicium is present in this case. Mr. Schumacher is attempting to use this Court’s processes to continue his campaign of harassment against Ms. Stewart. This is a particularly egregious form of abusive litigation. D. Inappropriate Demeanour or Unjustified Belief [ 15 ] As noted above, Mr. Schumacher appears to be animated by some misplaced sense of responsibility for Ms. Stewart.

His documents include the following statements: John Burton Schumacher is responsible to listen and respond to Stewart, personally and [the Radio Station] The Radio Communications Act guarantees John Burton Schumacher may respond to Krystal Stewart free of accusations of harassment respecting her residence, emails, texts, and phone calls. [The Radio Station] and [the Owner] are responsible to see to it that Stewart receives help, the help suggested to authorities by John Burton Schumacher. [The Radio Station] and [the Owner] are responsible for the agitation to Stewart’s ulcers, stress and anxiety while she broadcasts, strictly and absolutely to the response of John Burton Schumacher to those things irrespective of whether she considers those things to be harassment. [ 16 ] By obtaining a civil restraining order against him, Ms.

Stewart has made clear that Mr. Schumacher’s attentions are unwelcome. Mr. Schumacher’s only legal responsibility vis à vis Ms. Stewart is to abide by that restraining order and leave her in peace. III. Conclusion [ 17 ] On the basis of the foregoing, I find that several indicia of abusive litigation are present in this case, indicating that court access restrictions may be appropriate; see Rothweiler v Payette , 2018 ABQB 288 at para 31 . [ 18 ] Therefore, the next step in the Hok process is to invite submissions as to whether: 1.

John Schumacher should be subject to indefinite court access restrictions and, if so, 2. the appropriate form for those court access restrictions. [ 19 ] This process will be conducted in writing only: Unrau at paras 565-570 . Mr. Schumacher has until December 20, 2019 to file submissions in response to these issues. Ms. Stewart, the Radio Station and the Owner may, if they wish, make submissions in response to any submissions by Mr. Schumacher provided to them by December 20, 2019, due January 17, 2020. They may make those response submissions individually or collectively, at their option. Mr.

Schumacher then may make a reply to the Defendants’ responses, if any, due January 31, 2020. The Court will issue a decision following receipt of all submissions or following the last timely submission. [ 20 ] Pending those submissions and the Court’s decision, the interim court access restrictions imposed on Mr. Schumacher by my November 19, 2019 Order will remain in place. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 2 nd day of December, 2019. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.