Dmyterko v Telus, 2021 ABQB 1001

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Dmyterko v Telus, 2021 ABQB 1001 Date: 20211214 Dockets 2001 12768 Registry: Calgary Between: Janice Dmyterko Candidate Appellant - and - Telus Candidate Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] Janice Dmyterko [Ms.

Dmyterko] was made subject to court access restrictions pursuant to Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 on June 22, 2021 by a decision reported as Dmyterko v Nissan Canada Inc , 2021 ABQB 996 [ Dmyterko #8 ]. In 2020-2021, Ms. Dmyterko initiated a large number of civil lawsuits in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench that were struck out via the Civil Practice Note No. 7 “show cause” process. While Ms. Dmyterko had sued a broad range of defendants, much of her litigation was organized around an allegation that actor George Clooney and his associates and agents were engaged in harassment of Ms.

Dmyterko and theft of Ms. Dmyterko’s intellectual property. [ 2 ] Dmyterko #8 required that Ms. Dmyterko obtain permission - leave - prior to continuing or initiating proceedings in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. Although this Court is authorized to impose court access restrictions that operate at the Provincial Court of Alberta, and the Alberta Court of Appeal ( Judicature Act s 23.1(6)), that step was not taken with Ms. Dmyterko.

[ 3 ] Dmyterko #8 at para 9 (4) provides detailed instructions on the process and documents required for Ms. Dmyterko to seek leave to conduct Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench proceedings. On December 13, 2021, my office received a packet of materials from Ms. Dmyterko that I believe are her efforts to comply with the Dmyterko #8 para 9 (4) process, though Ms. Dmyterko also mentions some additional points that I respond to here to assist Ms. Dmyterko in the future to engage the Court in a non-abusive manner. [ 4 ] My conclusion is that Ms.

Dmyterko has misunderstood aspects of the scope of court access restrictions imposed in Dmyterko #8 , and what steps are required for her to conduct future court proceedings. This Decision is intended to assist Ms. Dmyterko in operating within the current court access restriction scheme. II. Appeal of Dmyterko v Telus , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 12768 [ 5 ] Ms. Dmyterko’s packet of materials include: 1.

An unfiled Alberta Court of Appeal “Civil Notice of Appeal” Form AP-1 completed with handwriting that names “Janice Sky” as the Appellant, appealing proceedings identified with docket 2001 12768, and that names “Telus” as the Respondent. 2. An “Affidavit” form document completed with handwriting by “Janice Sky”, affirmed on December 3, 2021, also bearing the docket number 2001 12768. [ 6 ] The 2001 12768 docket number is for the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Dmyterko v Telus action that was stuck out in Dmyterko v Telus , 2021 ABQB 220 on March 22, 2021. Ms.

Dmyterko signed other correspondence in the December 13, 2021 materials “Janice Sky”. I am presuming these are different names she uses for herself. [ 7 ] Ms. Dmyterko also attached a copy of a letter I sent to Ms. Dmyterko on September 3, 2021, that responded to correspondence I had received from Ms. Dmyterko on September 1, 2021. In that letter, I informed Ms. Dmyterko that: The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Dmyterko v Telus, Docket 2001 12768 Action is now ended. If you disagree with the Dmyterko v Telus, 2021 ABQB 220 decision, you should file an appeal with the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 8 ] I believe Ms.

Dmyterko misapprehends the court access restrictions imposed in Dmyterko #8 . In her December 13, 2021 correspondence, she states she requires an order to file claims, stating: As soon as possible, as I have to appeal a few legal claims at the Court of Appeal of Alberta asap - this month. ... [ 9 ] Ms. Dmyterko does not require permission of this Court to conduct any litigation, including appeals, that she chooses to initiate or continue at the Alberta Court of Appeal . It seems to me that Ms. Dmyterko seeks to appeal the Dmyterko v Telus , 2021 ABQB 220 decision.

Given that conclusion, I am forwarding a copy of Ms. Dmyterko’s December 13, 2021 letter to the Alberta Court of Appeal Case Management Officers for their review and response (if and as appropriate, in their view). Since I have concluded Ms. Dmyterko has erroneously misdirected an appeal to a different and superior court, I will not further comment on the nature and substance of that proceeding. III. Other Litigation by Ms. Dmyterko [ 10 ] The December 13, 2021 materials also seem to indicate Ms. Dmyterko wishes to engage in other litigation. [ 11 ] Ms.

Dmyterko states she plans to appeal a decision or decisions that involve the Edmonton International Airport, and seeks permission from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench for that. Ms. Dmyterko should make those filings with the Alberta Court of Appeal directly. Ms. Dmyterko does not require any order or authorization from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to conduct litigation at the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 12 ] Ms. Dmyterko also states she wishes obtain restraining orders, and statements of claim with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. Ms.

Dmyterko does not mention particulars for these claims, except that “... these criminals who are stealing my intellectual property can be put behind bars and are dealt with properly ...”. Ms. Dmyterko appears to allege one such “criminal” is “Ben Affleck”, who “... is a theif and a lier!! He steals my intellectual property every day. ...” [sic]. Ms. Dmyterko then lists a number of items, including “Ty stuffed toys” and “Nike sports shoes/sports wear”. [ 13 ] If Ms.

Dmyterko seeks to initiate further Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench proceedings, then she should follow the procedure set out in Dmyterko #8 at para 9 (4). Any leave to file application should be sent directly to my office. The leave to file process does not involve the Court Clerks. [ 14 ] Ms. Dmyterko indicates she has been seeking to obtain assistance from legal counsel, but expresses concern that “[s]omone may be paying them off or threatening them.” I strongly encourage Ms. Dmyterko to continue to seek legal assistance, and observe Ms.

Dmyterko may also contact a public legal assistance resource such as Legal Aid Alberta, Calgary Legal Guidance, or the University of Calgary Student Legal Assistance program. I believe Ms. Dmyterko would greatly benefit from this kind of assistance, and recommend she listen carefully to the information she obtains from these sources. [ 15 ] Ms. Dmyterko also expresses concern that I have been contacted by persons that she identifies as involved in theft of her intellectual property, and who Ms. Dmyterko has previously sued:

The weekend of November 20 and 21, 2021 something happened with J.D. Rooke and Brad Pitt and George Clooney I believe, they spoke to him. I’m not sure what’s going on there I have a concern, so I am addressing it. Is J.D. Rooke okay? Because I know those guys can be dangerous. [ 16 ] I assure Ms. Dmyterko that I have not been contacted by either Brad Pitt and/or George Clooney, and that, if I were contacted by Brad Pitt and/or George Clooney in relation to Ms. Dmyterko, I would insist that any communications by Brad Pitt and/or George Clooney were copied to Ms. Dmtyterko.

This Court’s communications protocol (https://albertacourts.ca/qb/resources/media/communicating-with-the-court) requires that all parties are copied in relation to proceedings before this Court. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 14 th day of December, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Janice Dmyterko Self-represented Litigant