Feeney v Simon, 2021 ABQB 169

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Feeney v Simon, 2021 ABQB 169 Date: 20210303 Docket: 1701 13254, 1801 06777 Registry: Calgary Between: 1701 13254 Keenan A. Feeney Respondent / Plaintiff - and - Kristina Simon Defendant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta Third Party Applicant The Law Society of Alberta Intervenor Between: 1801 06777 Keenan A. Feeney Respondent / Plaintiff - and - Calgary Police Service, Mike Ter-Kuile, and Mac Vomberg Defendant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta

Third Party Applicant The Law Society of Alberta Intervenor _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] I am the Case Management Justice in the following three related lawsuits initiated by Keenan A. Feeney [Mr.

Feeney]: • Feeney v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Action 1701 13254 [ Feeney #1 Action ], • Feeney v Calgary Police Service, Mike Ter-Kuile and Mac Vomberg , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Action 1801 06777 [ Feeney #2 Action ], and • Feeney v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, Joe Mercier, Gianna Argento, and Collin Schulauser , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Action 2001 10045 [ Feeney #3 Action ]. [ 2 ] Mr. Feeney is a self-represented litigant [SRL].

The general background of these actions was recently reviewed in Feeney v Alberta , 2021 ABCA 71 at paras 2-6 [ Feeney ABCA #2 ]. Mr. Feeney has active appeals of the Feeney #1-3 Actions with the Alberta Court of Appeal: Feeney ABCA #2 at paras 4-6 . [ 3 ] The Conditions and Guidelines for my case management of Mr. Feeney’s three Actions required that Mr. Feeney obtain leave prior to filing applications in the Feeney #1-3 Actions: ... an application may be brought by the SRL only after the [Case Management Justice] has granted leave for the application to be heard.

In order to seek leave, the SRL must provide his/her unfiled application and unsworn affidavit to the [Case Management Justice]. Leave will be given, in the usual case, if the application is a proper one under the Alberta Rules of Court and/or any applicable Practice Note or Notice to the Profession, and jurisprudence. [ 4 ] On February 26, 2021, Mr.

Feeney submitted three documents to the Calgary Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench email filing address: 1. a copy of the Feeney ABCA #2 decision, 2. a Form 8 “Notice to Obtain Record of Proceeding” requesting materials from the Feeney #1 and #2 Actions , and 3. an “Originating Application for Judicial Review” that states the Respondents are HER MAJEST THE QUEEN IN THE RIGHT OF ALBERTA (1701-13254) CALGRY POLICE SERVICE (1801-06777) [Sic.] [ 5 ] The “Originating Application” also states at paragraph 6: How the application is purposed to be heard or considered: 6. To be heard by The Honourable Mary T.

Moreau Chief Justice or other Officer of the Court assigned by the Minister of Justice.

[Emphasis in original.] [ 6 ] In light of this application being heard by Chief Justice Moreau, the Clerk of the Court instructed Mr. Feeney to direct his candidate filings to Chief Justice Moreau for approval of that process. Mr. Feeney forwarded his materials to Chief Justice Moreau via an email dated March 1, 2021. The same day Chief Justice Moreau referred Mr. Feeney’s email and attachments to me after review of Mr. Feeney’s materials, and in light of my being the Case Management Justice for the Feeney #1 and #2 Actions . II. The Feeney “Originating Application” is an Improper Filing [ 7 ] Mr.

Feeney’s “Originating Application” clearly relates to the Feeney #1 and #2 Actions . I am the Case Management Justice for those matters. Mr. Feeney is required by this Court’s Order to submit his “Originating Application” to me to evaluate whether the Court should grant leave or not to file these items. [ 8 ] I find in fact and law that when Mr. Feeney submitted his “Originating Application” to the Clerk of the Court, without first obtaining leave, Mr. Feeney was in prima facie contempt of this Court’s Case Management Orders. This is the first independent basis on which Mr.

Feeney’s “Originating Application” is rejected for filing. [ 9 ] Mr. Feeney also attempted to circumvent the Case Management process by directing his “Originating Application” to Chief Justice Moreau. Mr. Feeney is very well aware that doing that was improper, because, prima facie , the Case Management Justice is to hear all application in actions under case management, except trials. Mr. Feeney previously attempted to use this strategy, which is called “judge shopping”, as is documented in Simon v Feeney , 2020 ABQB 641 at paras 5 , 10-11 [ Simon v Feeney #1 ].

In that decision at paras 33-34, I found as fact that Mr. Feeney was “judge shopping” to evade litigation management. That was an abuse of the Court. Here Mr. Feeney is doing that again. [ 10 ] I therefore find as fact that Mr. Feeney is continuing and repeating his abusive strategy of “judge shopping” to evade litigation management by attempting to direct his “Originating Application” to Chief Justice Moreau. That is a second independent basis for why Mr. Feeney’s “Originating Application” is an abusive attempted filing and is rejected for filing on this basis. III.

The Feeney “Originating Application” is Substantively Hopeless, a Collateral Attack, and an Abuse of the Court [ 11 ] If I am in error, and that Mr. Feeney’s “Originating Application” is a valid leave to file application pursuant to the Feeney Actions case management, then I reject Mr. Feeney’s “Originating Application” on the following three bases. [ 12 ] First, Mr. Feeney purports to conduct a judicial review of “ACJ J.D. Rooke’s Decision on October 22nd, 2020 (1701-13254 1801-06777)”, which is Simon v Feeney #1 .

Judicial review is a mechanism for provincial superior courts to evaluate the legality of decisions and steps in subordinate bodies, such as administrative boards and tribunals, and the provincial courts. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench does not conduct judicial reviews of itself. This is a first reason why Mr. Feeney’s “Originating Application” is a hopeless and abusive proceeding, and why I refuse to grant leave to file the “Originating Application”. [ 13 ] Second, if Mr.

Feeney were to seek to challenge the process and outcome in Simon v Feeney #1 , then his appropriate recourse is to appeal Simon v Feeney #1 to the Alberta Court of Appeal. In fact, Mr. Feeney has indeed done exactly that, and is currently pursuing an appeal of Simon v Feeney #1 (Alberta Court of Appeal Docket 2001-0205AC). I find in fact and law that Mr. Feeney’s “Originating Application” is: 1. a collateral attack on Simon v Feeney #1 outside the proper appeal process, and 2. also a duplicative and abusive proceeding, where Mr.

Feeney is at the same time conducting two legal proceedings in different courts but that have the same subject matter. That is consistent with the general approach of Mr. Feeney to never take “No” for an answer and to continue to try to re-litigate matters over and over again, notwithstanding that the same issue has been previously decided against him. This is an abuse of court ( Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at para 613 ), and a further independent basis for why filing of Mr. Feeney’s “Originating Application” is denied. [ 14 ] Third, not only is Mr.

Feeney’s “Originating Application” a collateral attack on Simon v Feeney #1 , but Mr. Feeney’s “Originating Application” is also a collateral attack on Feeney ABCA #2 . Paragraph 9 of the “Originating Application” states I have provided “... evidence on the record to argue that he is immune from all liability and accountability.” Feeney ABCA #2 at paras 16-19 describes how Mr. Feeney unsuccessfully attempted to add me as a Respondent to his Alberta Court of Appeal proceedings. Justice Rowbotham concluded that Mr. Feeney’s attempts to involve me in Mr.

Feeney’s appeals were: ... barred by the principle of judicial immunity; no action lies against a judge for a judicial act ... Mr Feeney’s application seeks to secure an order that engages core judicial functions: the giving of reasons and the management of the judicial system. Rooke ACJ is entitled to rely upon the doctrine of judicial immunity. Mr Feeney’s remedy is to appeal these decisions, which he has already pursued. [ 15 ] I conclude that Mr. Feeney’s “Originating Application” is a collateral attack on this conclusion by Justice Rowbotham in Feeney ABCA #2 .

That is a yet further independent basis on which to refuse to file Mr. Feeney’s “Originating Application” - it is a collateral attack on Feeney ABCA # 2, and an abuse of the Court.

III. Conclusion [ 16 ] Mr. Feeney’s “Originating Application” and other materials submitted to the Court on February 26, 2021 are refused filing. These materials are an abuse of the Court’s processes, and are only placed on the Court file to document the basis for this decision. [ 17 ] Mr. Feeney is continuing his pattern of persistent litigation misconduct documented in Feeney v Alberta , 2020 ABQB 572 , action struck as abusive 2020 ABQB 633 , Simon v Feeney #1 , and Feeney v Simon , 2020 ABQB 759 . Mr. Feeney is ignoring the Court’s Case Management Orders. Mr.

Feeney has attempted to circumvent the Case Management procedure. Factually, Case Management has failed with Mr. Feeney. His most recent filings demonstrate that, despite the Court putting in place an apparatus to better manage Mr. Feeney’s persistent abusive litigation, Mr. Feeney has continued to cause purposeless, futile litigation that wastes the Court’s resources, from the Clerks through to the Chief Justice herself. [ 18 ] Mindful of my obligations to self-represented litigants, as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 , if Mr.

Feeney disagrees with this decision, his recourse is an appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 3 rd day of March, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Keenan A. Feeney Self-Represented Litigant